sefc policy statement - vancouverafter assessing industrial needs in the city and giving a priority...

Southeast False CreekPolicy Statement

City of VancouverPlanning Department

Adopted by Vancouver City Council, October 1999

Toward a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoodand a Major Park in Southeast False Creek

Introduction 1

INTRODUCTION ___________________________________ 3

VISION ____________________________________________ 7

PART A – LAND USE _______________________________ 91. Residential Use: Location and Density _____________________ 10

2. Residential Use: Household and Income Mix ________________ 12

3. Live-Work and Work-Live ________________________________ 14

4. Retail and Service Uses __________________________________ 16

5. Office Use ____________________________________________ 18

6. Industrial and Interim Uses _______________________________ 20

7. Community Facilities ___________________________________ 22

8. Social and Cultural Development __________________________ 24

PART B – BUILT FORM ____________________________ 299. Height, Character and Heritage ____________________________ 30

10. Views _______________________________________________ 36

PART C – OPEN SPACE ____________________________ 3911. Parks and Public Open Space ____________________________ 40

12. Water Basin and Shoreline ______________________________ 46

PART D – TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION __ 4913. Pedestrian Access and the Waterfront Walkway-Bikeway ______ 50

14. Transportation and Streets _______________________________ 52

15. Parking and Loading ___________________________________ 56

PART E – ENVIRONMENT _________________________ 5916. Energy Use __________________________________________ 60

17. Water Management: Supply and Sewers ___________________ 62

18. Waste, Recycling and Composting ________________________ 66

19. Soils ________________________________________________ 68

20. Air Quality ___________________________________________ 70

21. Urban Agriculture _____________________________________ 72

PART F – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANDSTEWARDSHIP __________________________ 75

22. Economic Development ________________________________ 76

23. Stewardship __________________________________________ 78

APPENDICES ______________________________________ 79A – Principles of Sustainable Development for SEFC____________ 80

B – Performance Targets for Southeast False Creek _____________ 82

C – Recommendations from the 1998 SEFC Design Charrette _____ 84

D – Groups Consulted and Informed _________________________ 85

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Southeast False Creek Policy Statement 1

2 Southeast False Creek Policy Statement

Looking to the northwest, with the Southeast False Creek study area outlined in white and the Downtown Peninsula and Stanley Park in the background(1994 photo)

Introduction 3

INTRODUCTION

SITE

The Southeast False Creek (SEFC) study area comprises a total of approxi-mately 36 hectares (80 acres) of former industrial land near downtown Van-couver.

The majority of the land in the study area north of 1st Avenue is City-owned. The study area also includes over 13.6 hectares (30 acres ) of pri-vately owned land, between 1st and 2nd avenues to the south and between1st Avenue, Quebec Street, Terminal Avenue and Main Street to the east.

The False Creek Inlet and Science World are to the north, the communityof South False Creek to the west, the Mount Pleasant Industrial Area to thesouth and the False Creek Flats Industrial Area to the east. Other nearbycommunities which form the context for SEFC include False Creek North,Thornton Park and Citygate, Chinatown, the Downtown Eastside,Strathcona, Mount Pleasant and Fairview Slopes.

HISTORY

SEFC has been an industrial area since the late 1800s. Its industrial useshave included sawmills, foundries, shipbuilding, metalworking, salt distri-bution, warehousing and the city’s public works yard (Cambie Yard). Theoriginal shoreline was near 1st Avenue and the land area north of it is com-prised of fill from many sources, including the Grandview Railway Cutand ash from a former incinerator in the Cambie Yard.

SEFC site in 1999 from the Vancity Tower


CITY COUNCIL’S DIRECTION

After assessing industrial needs in the city and giving a priority to housingnear downtown jobs, Council approved the release of SEFC from the in-dustrial land base in 1990. In 1991, Council directed that the residentialdevelopment in SEFC should provide a significant amount of family hous-ing.

In recognition of the need for the City to take a leadership role in protect-ing the environmental quality of our region, Council further directed thatSEFC should be developed to incorporate principles of energy-efficientcommunity design in its area plan and that the City should explore thepossibility of using SEFC as a model for “sustainable development.”

WHAT DOES “SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT” MEAN?

Projections indicate that the population of the world will surpass 10 billionpeople within the next 30 years. Our Common Future, a 1987 United Nationsreport on the environment and development, established that if we continueto develop with current practices, the earth will not be able to supply enoughresources or absorb the waste and pollution for a population of this size.Global warming and climate change, energy and resource shortages, foodshortages, and economic and social instability are the predicted results ofnot changing development and consumption patterns to a form which couldbe sustained into the foreseeable future. In Our Common Future,“sustainable development” was defined as:

“...development which meets the needs of the present withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meet their ownneeds.”

WHAT IS A SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBOURHOOD?

By planning a neighbourhood which reduces the consumption of energyand resources and the production of waste and pollution, we can create anurban neighbourhood in SEFC which is more sustainable.

SEFC, as a sustainable urban neighbourhood, will integrate into its urbancontext while protecting and enhancing the social and economic health ofits community, as well as the health of local and global ecosystems.

A thoughtful meshing of social, economic and ecological considerations isneeded to make an urban neighbourhood successful and once developed,for it to continue to function at sustainable levels of social and environ-mental performance. While much of Vancouver’s large-scale inner-cityplanning has focused on ensuring that public and social amenities are cre-ated by development, SEFC brings the long-term on-site and off-site envi-ronmental benefits to the forefront.

A vision for rowhousing in SEFC from the 1998 Design Charrette(Artist: Bob Worden)

Introduction 5

PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE DEVELOPMENT INSOUTHEAST FALSE CREEK

1) Implementing Sustainability

SEFC should promote the implementation of sustainable development prin-ciples in an urban setting, and thereby contribute to improving the main-stream practices of urban development throughout Vancouver and the re-gion.

2) Stewardship of Ecosystem Health

The development of SEFC should improve the ecological health of theFalse Creek Basin. It should recognize the need for conservation, restora-tion and management of local, regional and global ecosystems. Therefore,resource conservation and waste reduction measures should be implementedto a level that will meet the needs of present and future generations.

3) Economic Viability and Vitality

Development in SEFC should ensure economic viability without subsidyso the knowledge gained will be relevant to other development projects.

4) Social and Community Health

The development in SEFC should seek ways to strengthen social networksand enhance the quality of life for all in the neighbourhood. This can beachieved by creating a livable, complete community which: enhances cul-tural vitality and diversity; provides a wide range of accessible housingand employment choices; and encourages participation of residents andvisitors in stewardship of the neighbourhood.

WHAT IS A POLICY STATEMENT?

A policy statement describes general planning principles that will guidefuture development of the site. It identifies the type and amount of devel-opment that will be considered through the later phases of planning anddesign. It also identifies and lists standards of necessary public amenitiesfor the development, such as waterfront walkways, parks, public open space,community facilities, childcare needs and other neighbourhood and city-wide provisions.

Although this policy statement defines parameters of development, it ismeant to be flexible enough to accommodate a wide variety of detailedplans and options to be generated and evaluated during future planningphases. These will include the creation of the Official Development Plan,sub-area rezonings and subsequent development. This policy statement alsoembodies principles of sustainable urban development which can be usedto guide decisions in the future around SEFC.

RESPONSIBILITY

The directions and actions proposed in this policy statement are far-reach-ing. They address all phases of development and extend past constructionto the functioning of the community. As a result, the responsibility formeeting the proposed policies lies not only with the developer, but alsowith the City, the landowners, financiers, the public, senior levels of gov-ernment, and ultimately, SEFC residents.

In this process, it is the developer’s responsibility to challenge conven-tional thinking by progressing toward as many of the social and environ-mental objectives identified as reasonable within the limits of economicviability.


WHAT MAKES THIS POLICY STATEMENT UNIQUE?

This particular policy statement is unique in that it provides additionalguidance in realizing the vision of a sustainable community. New sectionshave been added, and others redefined from previous policy statements, toaddress the ecological, social and economic aspects of a sustainable com-munity. The report, Visions, Tools and Targets: Environmentally Sustain-able Development Guidelines for Southeast False Creek, written by TheSheltair Group and published by the City in 1998, provides guidance onthe ecological aspects of sustainable development for SEFC.

This policy statement addresses issues which span the entire developmentprocess and reach into the post-development stage. This comprehensiveapproach is typical of sustainable development initiatives. In order to es-tablish certainty and stakeholder responsibilities for each stage, severalpolicy categories have been established as follows:

� Official Development Plan (ODP) Phase PoliciesThese policies outline the issues which will be addressed during the ODPphase — the phase at which the general layout and concept plan is devel-oped for the entire study area. An ODP is approved by Council as a by-law,securing development rights and public amenities for the area.

� Rezoning Phase Policies

These policies address development issues in greater detail, including streetdesign, parks and public realm design, massing, urban design, form of de-velopment, design guidelines, and legal agreements. Rezonings are typi-cally done for individual sub-areas which have been identified in the ODP.The Rezoning Phase Policies will apply to each sub-area rezoning as itcomes forward.

� Development and Design Directives

These policies make recommendations for more specific building and land-scape design directions, mainly applicable during the development andbuilding permit phases.

� Post-Development Initiatives

These policies make recommendations on initiatives to pursue after devel-opment has been completed, in order to guide the operation and mainte-nance of this neighbourhood in a sustainable manner, as well as to encour-age high levels of social, environmental and economic performance.

� Demonstration Projects

These policies highlight progressive initiatives which pose challenges interms of regulations, economics, etc., but which are deemed to be verybeneficial to the development of SEFC and to the city, as they exploremore sustainable technologies and development practices.

It is important that the implication of policies for later stages of develop-ment be seriously considered during all stages of planning, so as to ensurethat options to achieve these later policies are not foregone by decisions atthe early stages of planning and development.

HOW HAS THE PUBLIC BEEN INVOLVED?

The policy statement phase began with Council’s approval of the planningprogram in May 1997. Initially meetings were held with the adjacent com-munities, business owners and groups actively interested in the redevelop-ment of this site. An advisory group was established representing these andother interests. City staff drafted this policy statement with the help of anadvisory group and consultants. Formal public review commenced in June1998 with open houses, public workshops, and meetings with adjacent land-owners, surrounding communities, interest groups, senior governments andacademics. Groups who have been closely involved are listed inAppendix D.

Introduction 7

VISION

A VISION FOR SOUTHEAST FALSE CREEK

SEFC is envisioned as a community in which people live, work, play andlearn in a neighbourhood that has been designed to maintain and balancethe highest possible levels of social equity, livability, ecological health andeconomic prosperity, so as to support their choices to live in a sustainablemanner.

WHAT WILL SOUTHEAST FALSE CREEK LOOK LIKE?

SEFC will be a mixed-use community on the False Creek waterfront with afocus on residential use. Recognizing its urban context, it will be devel-oped at the highest density possible while still meeting livability andsustainability objectives. It is a community which is intended to move to-wards sustainable development and in doing so, provide a learning experi-ence which can be applied at a much broader scale. It will be designed as acomplete community with goods and services within walking distance, andwill offer housing that is well linked by transit to nearby jobs.

The public realm in SEFC, including open space, parks, streets and path-ways will connect all portions of the site and will create links to the adja-cent neighbourhoods. Movement in SEFC will be accommodated on a finenetwork of paths and streets designed to emphasize priority for pedestri-ans, cyclists and transit.

A wide diversity of housing comprising 2,000 to 2,500 units for 4,000 to5,000 people will be planned into the lands north of 1st Avenue, with fam-ily housing as a priority. Plans may also include housing for another 3,000to 4,000 on the private lands in SEFC, and live-work space as a priority.

Community amenities and commercial-industrial space will provide op-portunities for residents to live, work, play, learn and interact with theirneighbours.

SEFC will have a diversity of built form, including high-rise, medium-rise,and low-rise buildings. Building height and density will be influenced bythe site’s context. At the eastern end of the site, higher buildings will ad-here to a 1984 plan for East False Creek, which is already well under waywith the Citygate development to the north. This area will be mixed-use,with commercial at grade and either residential or live-work units above.Near the Main Street SkyTrain Station office, commercial and institutionaluses may be considered.

Vision 7

West 4th Avenue in Vancouver: A livable urban neighbourhood


The building height established at the eastern end of the site will continuearound the corner to both the City-owned and privately held lands. It willstep down towards the centre of the site where an area of lower buildingsand public open space will create a neighbourhood centre, including publicuse of the heritage Domtar Salt Building. A large area of park may occupythe western part of the site.

The built form should celebrate the heritage of SEFC while meeting bothfunctional and economic needs of a modern mixed-use neighbourhood andits vicinity. The buildings should be designed to be healthy, livable andefficient in their use of energy, resources and water.

The SEFC neighbourhood will provide a wide variety of parks and recrea-tional experiences along the waterfront, including the completion of shore-line improvements and the Seaside pedestrian-bicycle route. Parks and open

space in SEFC will provide recreational and cultural opportunities to resi-dents and visitors, as well as the space needed to meet ecological objec-tives, including wildlife habitat. Both private and community gardens willbe encouraged.

In the interest of testing new technologies for application on a wider basis,demonstration projects in advanced technologies for renewable energy sup-ply, water management, green building design and urban agriculture maybe explored in some areas of the site.

Sustainable urban development: A vision for the primary commercial street inSEFC from the 1998 Design Charrette (Artist: Bob Worden)

Davie and Denman: Mixed use well integrated into a high-density neighbourhood

Part A – Land Use 9

PART A – LAND USEThe land-use patterns in SEFC, including residential, commercial, industrial, culturaland recreational facilities, will offer diverse opportunities for residents to live, work,learn and play in a livable neighbourhood. As a complete, mixed-use neighbourhood,SEFC will promote social interaction, community building, a prosperous local economyand reduced dependence on private automobile use.


1. Residential Use: Location and Density

1.1 ISSUES

1. What is the highest residential density that the site can support whileachieving both environmental sustainability and a high degree oflivability for all?

2. What density will ensure livability?3. What density is appropriate, given Vancouver’s commitment to

managing regional growth by providing high-density residentialdevelopment in the inner city?

4. What densities are suitable for households with children?5. What neighbourhood character is appropriate for each sub-area in

SEFC?6. Where should higher densities be located to best integrate with the

character of surrounding neighbourhoods?

1.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. The Livable Region Strategy recommends increasing housing close toVancouver’s downtown.

2. In 1990, Council adopted the Clouds of Change report whichrecommends:a) Increasing housing densities in and around Vancouver’s Central

Area; andb) Integrating work, residences and shopping in mixed-use

developments.3. In 1991, Council adopted the Central Area Plan which recommends:

a) Creating highly livable neighbourhoods close to the downtown;b) Providing a choice of housing in these neighbourhoods; andc) Placing an emphasis on housing families with children in SEFC.

4. In 1996, Council approved the relocation by 1999 of an asphalt plantand aggregate handling operations away from the Cambie Yard.

1.3 OBJECTIVES AND INTENT

1. To optimize the density in SEFC so as to:a) Increase housing in Vancouver that is close to the downtown job

base and linked to transit, thereby reducing commuter trips;b) Ensure a high standard of livability; andc) Achieve a reasonable rate of return on the City’s investment in

the land.2. To provide a significant amount of family housing.3. To create a mixed-use neighbourhood.4. To increase the diversity of housing available in SEFC and in the city.5. To develop SEFC at an appropriate density, taking into account the

relationship between density, livability, economic viability andenvironmental quality.

6. To set densities in the sub-areas of SEFC so as to integrate with theadjacent context, recognizing that, over the next 50 years, thesurrounding neighbourhoods will likely redevelop to higher densities.Existing densities include False Creek North at 3.0 FSR, Citygate at3.75 FSR and South False Creek at 1.3 FSR.

1.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. While a wide range of housing types should be allowed throughoutthe SEFC site, some housing types should be located strategically asfollows:a) Live-work spaces should be close to busy commercial areas and

near to industrial sites and/or well-travelled arterial streets (seeLive-Work Policies);

b) Family housing, as part of identifiable neighbourhood areas, shouldbe in ground-oriented developments and close to open space,


schools, childcare centres, community facilities and other amenitiesdesigned for children; and

c) Smaller suites should be in towers and/or in spaces above busycommercial areas.

2. Densities on the City-owned lands and on the privately held landsshould be generally integrated within a single vision of SEFC as acomplete community in use and form.

3. Densities allowed on the site should be consistent with those recentlyapproved elsewhere in False Creek, providing that there is a high degree

of livability and that they meet the City’s Guidelines for High-DensityHousing for Families with Children.

4. On the blocks between 1st and 2nd avenues, a new land-use zoneshould be created, in consultation with the property owners, whichintroduces residential and live-work uses and mixes with non-residential uses, including those already present. This zone shouldpermit clean industrial uses and promote a mixture of land uses at adensity that encourages redevelopment of those buildings needingreplacement, but encourages the retention of viable, existing industrialbuildings and uses.

5. Throughout all of SEFC, a fine grain of development should beencouraged by the sensitive design of the larger parcels and by theprovision of some smaller parcels.

6. Housing should be located and designed to promote an active and safepublic realm, which contributes to social interaction among residentsand leads to a sense of community.

7. The density target for the lands north of 1st Avenue, between Quebecand Cambie streets, should be up to 204 000 m2 (2.2 million sq. ft.) ofwhich:a) 186 000 m2 (2.0 million sq. ft.) may be residential use; andb) 18 600 m2 (200,000 sq. ft.) may be commercial or industrial

uses.Cultural, recreational and institutional space should be excluded fromthese floor space totals.

8. The privately owned lands should be a mixed-use area. Existing cleanindustrial use is encouraged and can remain and/or be graduallyreplaced by retail and service, live-work or residential uses.

9. 1st Avenue should have live-work, commercial or industrial uses atgrade.

False Creek North: A livable high-density neighbourhood


2. Residential Use: Household andIncome Mix

2.1 ISSUES

1. How do we create a stable community with a healthy mix of ages andincomes?

2. What is an appropriate range of household types and incomes forSEFC?

3. Will enough families locate in SEFC to make it practical to provideschools, childcare centres and other children’s services?

4. Are there other groups for which special targets for housing should beset, such as young adults, people with disabilities, the elderly, or thehard-to-house?

5. What is the appropriate mix of market, rental and non-market housingto create a sustainable social community in SEFC?

6. What is SEFC’s fair share of the responsibility to provide low-incomeand affordable housing?

2.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. Zoning for False Creek North, Coal Harbour and Citygate was approvedwith a minimum requirement that 25% of housing units be suitablefor families with children, and that 20% of units be developed as non-market housing (half for families with children).

2. In Coal Harbour, a rental bonus of 0.5 FSR was included to encouragethe construction of market rental units.

3. The City-owned South False Creek neighbourhood was developed asa community of approximately one-third lower income, one-thirdmoderate income and one-third higher income households, including25% family households. This was achieved by delivering about 50%non-market and 50% market housing, with funding provided by seniorgovernments. Citygate: A range of incomes in a high-density development


units. These programs are to be funded by senior governments or bypublic-private partnerships that can achieve a similar result.

2. Two-thirds of the non-market units should be suitable for familieswith children. A portion of these units could be targeted to familieswith younger children and to single-parent families. The remainingone-third of the non-market units should focus on low- and moderate-income singles, seniors and persons with special needs. Funding needsto be provided from the provincial government to achieve this policy.

3. A minimum of 35% of the total units on the land north of 1st Avenueshould be suitable for families with children. Consider using someDCL (Development Cost Levy) funds for this housing.

4. A variety of housing forms should be offered in SEFC, including clusterhousing, row housing, and town homes, as well as mid- and high-riseapartment towers. Innovative forms of housing should also be explored,including rooming houses with small suites for singles and co-housingfor families with children.

5. Housing types should be mixed throughout the study area to contrib-ute to the social mix in SEFC.

Rezoning Phase Policies

6. A mix of tenures should be considered for the 20% allocation of socialhousing including non-profit, co-op, rental and life-lease.

7. Some housing types should be designed to be capable of supportingground-oriented, home-based childcare enterprises.

8. Special-needs housing should be integrated into the community andlinked to appropriate outreach services and facilities.

Demonstration Projects

9. The City should explore creative financial strategies to achieve af-fordable housing in the current climate of reduced senior governmentsubsidies.

10. The City should investigate incentives for rental housing.11. Aging-in-place communities for seniors should be considered,

including congregate housing and licensed care.

4. In 1989, Council approved the Guidelines for High Density Housingfor Families with Children, which outlined community, project anddwelling unit criteria to ensure that higher density housing was designedto be as livable as possible for families with children.

5. In 1991, Council recommended that the provision of housing forfamilies with children be a priority for SEFC.

6. In 1995, Council adopted CityPlan which recommended thedevelopment of new downtown neighbourhoods with a variety ofhousing forms, including affordable housing.


1. To provide a variety of housing forms and costs in SEFC toaccommodate a wide range of individuals, including youth, singles,couples, families with children, seniors, people with special needs,artists and others.

2. To increase the amount of affordable housing in the downtown,especially affordable family housing.

Rationale: Approximately 60% of GVRD households containchildren and about 50% of downtown workers live in householdswith children. In Vancouver, 30% of households are “low income”and 36% of all children live in low-income families, with thehighest rate in Mount Pleasant at 49%. Approximately 60,000households in Vancouver are classified as “core-need,” most ofthese are households with children.

3. To use housing to help develop a diverse and socially cohesivecommunity in SEFC.

2.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. On the land north of 1st Avenue, sites should be reserved for non-market housing programs to build a minimum of 20% of the total


3. Live-Work and Work-Live

3.1 ISSUES

1. How can SEFC be planned to encourage live-work and work-live?2. What needs to be done to resolve issues surrounding different types of

live-work and work-live?

3.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. In 1995, Council approved Policies for Artist Live-Work Studios,allowing for the development of units which combine an artist studiospace with a residential unit. This policy included three goals:a) To encourage the provision of artist live-work studios that are

legal, safe, functional and affordable;b) To discourage the displacement of industrial and business

service uses by artist work spaces in I, IC-1, IC-2 and Mdistricts; and

c) To address the need for on-site and off-site amenities, wherewarranted by population increases or amenity opportunities.

2. In response to private initiatives, the City commissioned a consultancyto investigate the design and code implications of live-work and work-live uses. Although the study Work-Live in Vancouver was completed,its recommendations were not implemented.

3. Terminology used to date for live-work and work-live policy discus-sions includes:a) Live-Work: The expectations of neighbours for quiet in the

building or in the neighbourhood take precedence over the workneeds of the unit.

b) Work-Live: The work-related needs of the unit, with respect tonoise, odour, employees and customers, take precedence over theneighbours’ expectations for quiet. Artech live-work building, Brewery Creek


c) Commercial: This type covers the vast majority of home-basedbusinesses, including consultants, professionals, personalservices and office components of off-site companies.

d) Industrial: This type covers businesses that involve goodsproduction, equipment servicing, transportation andcommunication uses.

e) Artist: This type includes craftpersons such as painters,musicians, ceramics, etc.


1. To provide opportunities for all types of live-work and work-livedevelopments in SEFC in order to accommodate the growing demandfor live-work accommodation and to reduce commuting.

Rationale: An increasing number of Vancouverites work in theirhome. In 1991, about 6.7% of the Vancouver labour force workedout of their homes, nearly twice as many as 10 years previous(from Work-Live in Vancouver).

3.4 NEW POLICY

1. As a priority, the City should analyse the consultant study, Work-Livein Vancouver, and report to Council with by-law requirements necessaryto ensure the inclusion of live-work and work-live uses in SEFC andother designated areas.

2. Artist and other types of live-work, work-live, and/or residential uses,should be considered in all areas of SEFC, especially in the mixed-use area between 1st and 2nd avenues.

Main Space live-work building, Brewery Creek


4. Retail and Service Uses

4.1 ISSUES

1. What capacity do surrounding retail streets have, such as Main Street,West 2nd Avenue and Cambie Street, to provide retail services to partsof SEFC?

2. How much additional retail and service use should be included inSEFC?

3. What special concerns must be met to make retail and service useseconomically viable — e.g., location, visibility, parking, etc?

4. Should specialized or destination retail and service use be providedon the waterfront?

5. How should the provision of adequate food-oriented retail, such as amajor grocery store, be dealt with?

6. How can we encourage environmentally friendly business practicesin SEFC?

7. Will increased retail and service use in this area have negative impactson existing commercial uses in surrounding neighbourhoods?

4.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. The Central Area Plan, adopted by Council in 1991, recommendsthat retail be focused in several key downtown streets and areas, andthat it be developed so as to contribute to the vitality of public streets.

2. Both the False Creek and Coal Harbour policy statements limit retailand service use to specified locations so as to animate streets, to linkto nearby areas, to provide daily shopping close to home, and to provideinterest along the waterfront.


1. Retail and service uses should be optimized and located so as to:a) Adequately serve many of the daily shopping and grocery needs

of the new residents and of others coming from adjacentneighbourhoods;

b) Provide employment opportunities for residents; andc) Ensure the harmonious integration of retail and residential uses.

2. Retail uses should also be located so as to contribute to otherobjectives such as:a) To create an interesting and animated public realm; andb) To increase social interaction.

3. Environmentally responsible business practices should be encouragedfor retail and services uses in SEFC.

4.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. The integration of retail and service with other uses, such as industrialor residential, should be encouraged where appropriate.


2. Retail and service uses should be permitted on portions of 1st and 2ndavenues. High-priority retail areas should be created near transit stops,the community centre, and other public activity centres and nodes.

3. Retail and service uses should be returned to the area between Mainand Quebec streets south of Terminal Avenue, and they should bemixed with residential use.

4. Retail and service uses should be permitted north of 1st Avenue, wherethey will:a) Create and animate centres of public interaction;b) Provide links in the public open space network between key

points, such as public facilities; and


c) Provide interest and services in specific locations that are easilyaccessible along the waterfront walkway.

5. The development of adequate food-oriented retail, including a majorfood store, should be encouraged in or adjacent to SEFC, on a sitewhich has good accessibility.

6. Retail with very large floor plates aimed at a regional market (e.g. big-box retail), other than a grocery store, should not be permitted in SEFC.

7. Strong pedestrian links should be encouraged, between the housingand the retail and service areas, to encourage walking and to discourageuse of the automobile. (See Transportation Policies)

8. On the lands north of 1st Avenue, between Quebec and Cambie streets,up to 18 600 m2 (200,000 sq. ft.) of floor space should be consideredfor commercial and industrial uses. Cultural, recreational andinstitutional space should be excluded from these floor space totals.

9. The privately owned land between 1st and 2nd avenues should be amixed-use area. Existing clean industrial use is encouraged and canremain, and/or be gradually replaced by retail and service, live-workor residential uses.

10. Commercial use should be encouraged at grade along 1st Avenue whereit would complement commercial development north of 1st Avenue.

11. 2nd Avenue should have commercial or industrial use at grade.12. The area on the eastern edge of SEFC, between Main and Quebec

streets and 1st and Terminal avenues, should remain mixed use,retaining its current FC-1 zoning designation. Small adjustments tocurrent zoning regulations should be considered to change retail,service and office capacity. The new zoning regulations will be decidedas part of the ODP process.

Development and Design Directives

13. Consideration should be given to robust and flexible building designfor commercial buildings which could accommodate a wide range ofuses and be adaptable as SEFC evolves over time. This is especiallyimportant for the lower levels of buildings.

Post-Development Initiatives

14. Environmentally-responsible business practices should be encouragedin SEFC through education. (See Economic Development Policies)

An animated shopping area in Granville Island, supplying the needs of localresidents and visitors


2211 West 4th Ave: A mixed-use building with residential, retail and local-servingoffice uses. The building takes excess heat from commercial areas and uses it toheat residential units.

5. Office Uses

5.1 ISSUES

1. How much office space should be provided in SEFC and whereshould it be located?

2. What percentage of the office space in SEFC should be localserving and how much should be general office?

3. How can the transportation loads associated with office uses andcommuting be mitigated?

4. How can office areas provide social and environmental benefits toSEFC?

5.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. The False Creek and Coal Harbour policy statements express someconcern over increasing office supply in the downtown, but they doidentify areas for future office development which are either logicalextensions of the CBD or are areas which are not suitable for residentialuse.

2. The False Creek Flats Preliminary Concept Plan identified the areain the vicinity of the Main Street SkyTrain Station as suitable for newoffice development.

3. The Central Area Plan, adopted by Council in 1991, recommends:a) Office uses to be clustered in the downtown around transit; andb) Office uses outside the downtown should be primarily

concentrated along Broadway.


1. To provide adequate office space in SEFC to supply local commercial,residential and community uses.


Vancity Credit Union Headquarters located along the SkyTrain route at thenortheast corner of SEFC site: Over half of the employees at this location commuteby transit

2. To ensure that general office development in SEFC does not drawsignificant office capacity from Broadway or the downtown core, orcontribute significantly to commuter traffic in and around SEFC.

3. To consider strategically locating office uses such that excess heatcan be transferred to residential space.

5.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. General Office use should only be allowed on sites that are close toeither the Main Street SkyTrain Station or to Cambie Street.

2. North of 1st Avenue, a limited amount of local-serving offices shouldbe allowed in commercial nodes, in association with retail and service

uses, as part of the 18 600 m2 (200,000 sq. ft.) of commercial floorspace allocated for this area.

3. Local-serving offices should not be allowed along or in close proximityto the waterfront walkway.


4. The development of local-serving offices should be permitted in thearea bounded by Main and Quebec streets and by Terminal and 1stavenues. Small adjustments to current FC-1 zoning regulations shouldbe considered to change retail, service and office capacity.

5. Local-serving offices should be permitted in the area between 1st and2nd Avenues from Quebec Street to the Cambie Bridge.

6. Home offices, beyond home occupation status, should be consideredin SEFC, possibly as a live-work designation.

7. The provision of smaller office spaces should be encouraged for socialservices that are not suited for grouping within a central communityfacility.

8. Commercial use, including office use, should be located at grade along1st Avenue where it would complement commercial development northof 1st Avenue. 2nd Avenue should have commercial, including office,or industrial use at grade.


6. Industrial and Interim Uses

6.1 ISSUES

1. How can the City locate industrial uses in SEFC to promote a diversityof jobs on the site?

2. There are a number of clean industries in the block between 1st and2nd Avenues, which provide jobs and add diversity and vibrancy tothe area. How can we redevelop SEFC in such a way as to encouragethese industries to stay?

3. How should SEFC integrate with new and old industrial uses in theFalse Creek Flats?

4. Should high-tech industry be encouraged in SEFC?5. What does the GVTA have planned for its property at 1st Avenue and

Quebec Street?

6.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. In 1990, Council adopted a policy which classified SEFC as a“let-go” industrial area.

2. The False Creek Flats Preliminary Concept Plan encourages thedevelopment of high-tech, high-amenity industries on a substantialportion of the Flats, including Finning International’s property.

3. Policy direction concerning industrial use in SEFC, put forward in theFalse Creek Policy Broadsheets, was deferred by Council in 1988.


1. To preserve and encourage the creation of jobs in clean industries inSEFC, especially in the high-tech sector.

2. To encourage creative integration of industry with other land uses inSEFC to build a complete, mixed-use community.

3. To encourage appropriate interim uses which do not foreclose futuredevelopment opportunities, but which contribute to the viability andsustainability of SEFC.

4. To determine a zoning designation for the private lands between 1stand 2nd avenues which will allow for redevelopment over time, butnot replace viable clean industries.

Small-scale waterfront industry for non-motorized craft

6.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. Interim uses are allowed north of 1st Avenue, but they should becompatible with the anticipated permanent uses in the area. Interimuses that are difficult to move or high in capital investment should bediscouraged, thereby avoiding lengthy tenure.


2. The Molson Indy Race Track should not be planned into the SEFCdevelopment. Any extension of Indy beyond the current terminationdate of 2001 should only be considered if development has notproceeded, and should include full public consultation prior toconsideration by Council.

3. The waterfront walkway through SEFC should be installed as soon aspossible. Should development of the area be postponed, a temporarywalkway should be considered.

4. The density target for lands north of 1st Avenue should be up to18 600 m2 (200,000 sq. ft.) of commercial and industrial uses.

Clean industry in SEFC: Compatible with a mixed-use residential neighbourhood


5. Demonstration projects promoting sustainability and providingeducational opportunities should be considered for interim uses inSEFC, provided they do not preclude the ease of future developmentsand are consistent with the development plan for SEFC.

6. 1st Avenue should have live-work, commercial or industrial use atgrade.

7. 2nd Avenue should have commercial or industrial use at grade.8. For the area between 1st and 2nd avenues, a new zoning designation

should be developed in consultation with the property owners whichcontinues to permit clean industrial use and moves toward a mixtureof uses including residential and live-work. The density should be at alevel which encourages redevelopment of those buildings needingreplacement and encourages retention of viable industrial buildingsand uses.

9. In conjunction with the Blueways initiative, opportunities should beinvestigated for small-scale, clean, waterfront industry in SEFC, suchas small boat building.


10. The City should use education to encourage environmentally-responsible industrial practices in SEFC (see Economic DevelopmentPolicies) and should investigate establishing systems of “IndustrialEcology,” where the waste products of one company’s activity couldbe used as resources by another nearby company.


7. Community Facilities

7.1 ISSUES

1. Is the anticipated residential and working population of SEFC largeenough to support its own array of community facilities?

2. Are some community facilities justified by demands not met in theadjacent areas?

3. Do the existing community facilities in adjacent areas have capacityto take on some of the needs generated by SEFC?

4. How shall the community facilities in SEFC be programmed to providethe necessary services for its residents, as well as to compliment theservices provided by other downtown community centres?

5. How should the provision of community facilities be phased?6. How can SEFC’s facilities offer activities for youth, including places

to simply “hang out?”7. How can the public areas and community facilities be designed to

maximize safety?8. Is an additional school required or do existing schools and those

planned for False Creek North have the capacity to accommodatechildren from the southeast shore?

9. Do healthcare facilities need to be provided in SEFC?10. How should SEFC facilities support non-motorized boating?

7.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. Both the False Creek and Coal Harbour policy statements require afull range of community facilities and services to serve the needs oftheir respective populations.

2. CityPlan, adopted by Council in 1995, promotes the development of asense of community in downtown neighbourhoods through theprovision of accessible community-based facilities and services.


1. To provide community facilities, services, school facilities andamenities in SEFC to serve new residents, and to increase the overallrange of amenities available to visitors as well as residents of theneighbouring communities.

2. To ensure that community amenities are accessible to people of allage groups and to people with special needs.

3. To provide facilities which increase opportunities to access and enjoyFalse Creek and the waterfront.

4. To promote the learning of sustainable development principles,technology and practices through the design and programs ofcommunity facilities.

7.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. A Services Plan or “white paper” for SEFC should be developed byCity staff to determine an appropriate range of community facilitiesneeded in SEFC to address the educational, social, health, recreational,and cultural needs of residents and employees, inclusive of all agegroups and of those with special needs.

2. Community facilities and services should be developed concurrentlywith the residential units that they are intended to serve.

3. The City should investigate the possibilities of combining communityand school facilities, in order to facilitate greater efficiencies in landuse, energy and resources. Agreements with the School Board areneeded to achieve this policy.


4. The Domtar Salt Building, located at 1st Avenue and Manitoba Street,should be converted to some form of public use.

5. The development of facilities to serve the non-motorized boatingcommunity should be encouraged in SEFC.


6. Development Cost Levies (DCLs) on the private lands in the studyareas should be considered as a funding mechanism to contribute ashare toward public amenities.

7. Childcare facilities should be provided to City standards for childrenof parents living or working in SEFC. These facilities should be a mixof larger traditional childcare centres and smaller home-based familyoperations spread throughout the site.

8. A cultural resource centre should be considered in SEFC, inconjunction with other community facilities, with a priority toprogramming for children and youth, community art making and/orenvironmental art and education.

9. The development of indoor and outdoor community meeting placesthat have a unique neighbourhood character should be encouraged.


10. Public buildings in SEFC should be used, where feasible, asdemonstration projects of advanced environmental design, in order topromote the widest possible education of residents and visitors on thespecial sustainable characteristics of SEFC.


11. The City should work to establish neighbourhood facilities in SEFC,possibly in conjunction with a community centre, to provide forcommunity and visitor education, community policing, environmentalmonitoring and community program administration.

Roundhouse Community Centre: The heart of False Creek North in a renovated heritage building


8. Social and Cultural Development

8.1 ISSUES

1. How can the SEFC planning process encourage the development of alivable, strong, healthy community?

2. How can SEFC contribute to the overall social health of the City?3. How can SEFC plan for active community participation by all

generations — from children and youth to seniors?4. How can life-long learning be encouraged in SEFC?5. How can ecological issues and the unique environmental aspects of

SEFC be highlighted for residents and visitors to encourage moreenvironmentally sensitive lifestyles?

6. How can planning and design make for a safer neighbourhood in SEFC?7. What can SEFC do to shoulder its fair share of the responsibility for

supporting low-income and disadvantaged social groups in the city?8. How can arts and culture support the well-being of both the individual

and community?

8.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. The Central Area Plan (1991) established goals to include a mix ofactivities — quieter neighbourhoods mixed with more active areas tobe focused on public streets where people shop, work and play. Thedowntown is seen as a place for people of all ages, abilities, incomelevels and ethnicities.

2. The Central Area Plan also identified a vision of housing for familiesas a priority for SEFC.

3. In 1990, City Council approved a series of priorities for culturalfacilities, including an arts centre for children and youth, an artsresource centre (production, rehearsal and administration space) andartist live-work studios.

4. The Vancouver Arts Initiative (1995) includes a recommendation thatstaff review and report back on the availability and feasibility ofdeveloping a City-owned site on the south shore of False Creek as anarts resource centre.

5. CityPlan (1995) sets goals for:a) Accessible, community-based services such as health and

recreation programs, social programs and libraries;b) Neighbourhood-based programs to promote safety and prevent

crime;c) The encouragment of affordable housing;d) The promotion of art and culture to contribute to the city’s

identity, cultural heritage and neighbourhood character, as wellas to citizens’ learning and self-expression; and

e) The provision of new and more diverse public places wherepeople can relax, walk, bike, socialize, celebrate and play.

6. City policy requires that a major new development must providecommunity facilities and services needed by its population, includingchildcare, community recreation facilities, public art, schools andlibraries.


1. To plan and develop a neighbourhood which promotes a healthyindividual and community life for a wide diversity of residents, bothin SEFC and in the city as a whole.

2. To encourage the development of facilities and programs in SEFCwhich support culture, the arts and education.

3. To plan and develop SEFC in such a way as to celebrate the area’sheritage in a variety of ways, such as building retention, public art,landscape design and program development.


8.4 NEW POLICY

The format of this section differs from the rest of the document, so as toreflect the importance of the social and community-oriented policies whichwill help support the social health of the neighbourhood and to presentthese policies coherently. At the end of each policy, the associated devel-opment stage is abbreviated in parentheses as follows: ODP Phase Policies(ODP); Rezoning Phase Policies (ReZ); Development and Design Direc-tives (Dev); Post-Development Initiatives (Post); and DemonstrationProjects (Demo). Note that some policies relate to, or are listed in, othersections of this policy statement. These cross-references are also noted inparentheses.

Families with Children

1. A range of affordable housing choices should be provided in SEFC.Funding from the Province will be necessary to build core-need housing(ReZ) (see Residential Use Policies).

2. Family daycare and new forms of childcare should be encouraged inSEFC (ReZ) (see Community Amenity Policies).

3. Child-friendly design should be encouraged throughout SEFC, toensure children have a safe, supportive and stimulating place to learn,experience and grow (Dev) (see Parks Policies).

Youth

4. The City should encourage youth participation in SEFC planning torespond to youth-related issues (all stages).

5. The City should encourage youth-oriented community facilities,cultural activities and economic opportunities in SEFC (Post) (seeCommunity Amenity Policies).

Seniors

6. The City should promote housing choices which facilitate aging-in-place (ReZ) (Demo) (see Housing Policies).A childcare centre in False Creek North


7. The City should encourage the development of community activitiesand facilities for seniors (Post).

8. All public spaces should be designed according to barrier-freeprinciples (Dev) (see Parks and Open Space Policies).

Diversity

9. A healthy level of social diversity should be promoted in SEFC,addressing factors such as age, income, culture, gender, family type,education, occupation, housing tenure and health status (Post).

Arts & Culture

10. Cultural and community activities should be encouraged in public openspaces (Post).

11. Public art should be provided to City standards (ReZ).

12. The City should encourage public artist participation in the planningand design of the open spaces in SEFC (Dev).

13. Encourage ongoing community participation in shaping the SEFCneighbourhood through community public art projects (Post).

14. Links with adjacent cultural resources such as the RoundhouseCommunity Arts Centre, Science World and Granville Island, shouldbe encouraged by the City (Post).

15. Development of affordable artist studios and artists’ live-work shouldbe encouraged (Dev) (see Live-Work Policies).

Heritage

(See Built Form and Parks sections for policies on promoting and preserv-ing heritage in buildings and open space in SEFC.)

Granville Island: A regional centre for artistic and cultural activity

A community for all ages


Education

16. Opportunities for interdisciplinary learning in the arts, science, theenvironment, health and wellness should be encouraged in SEFCschools and community facilities (Post).

Individual Well-being

17. Resident health and wellness should be encouraged by providing on-site recreational facilities, parks, waterfront walkways, bike paths,community gardens and access to the waterfront activities (ODP) (Post)(see Parks Policies).

18. Participation in educational, arts and cultural activities should beencouraged (Post).

19. Design guidelines for SEFC should be sensitive to safety and securityconcerns, so as to encourage comfortable use of the public realm (Dev)(see Parks and Open Space Policies).

Community Building

20. Resident participation in key decisions affecting the SEFC neighbour-hood should be encouraged (Post).

Public art integrated into the seawall in False Creek North


A robust heritage building in Gastown which has adapted itself to a wide range of uses over a century

Part B – Built Form 29

PART B – BUILT FORMBuilt form in SEFC, including building height, character, massing and views, shouldcreate identifiable neighbourhoods which accommodate a wide range of land uses and adiversity of residents. The buildings should be designed to use energy and water efficiently,to produce little waste or pollution, and to provide healthy places to work and live. Thebuildings should also be designed and oriented to enhance public open space and thesite’s ecosystems.


9. Height, Character and Heritage

9.1 ISSUES

1. How should the built form respond:a) To the overall context of the east end of False Creek, both now

and in the future;b) To the waterfront;c) To the need for solar access to both buildings and open spaces

for livability and energy efficiency; andd) To internal livability issues such as noise, privacy and private

views?2. For the residential area (which is primarily north of 1st Avenue):

a) What types of buildings are appropriate?b) How will the blocks be divided up into sub-components to

ensure an appropriate degree of comfort, identity, safety andsecurity for residents?

3. What general and maximum building heights are appropriate:a) To integrate successfully with the surrounding neighbourhoods?b) To meet livability objectives including views and open space?c) To respond to the water?

4. How should the interface between the private and public realm bedesigned, particularly on the park edges?

5. How can the buildings be designed to enhance the health of the site’secosystem?

6. What issues need to be addressed in SEFC to create more environ-mentally sensitive “green buildings?” Should guidelines for greenbuildings be developed and implemented?

7. How should the economic implications of green building technologiesbe addressed? Can full-cost accounting methodologies provideguidance in this area?

8. How can the architecture in SEFC be designed to both integrate intothe city fabric and visibly demonstrate its unique “green”characteristics?

9.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. In 1984, City Council approved the East False Creek Plan whichrecommended a number of towers at the eastern end of False Creek.

2. The 1990 development plan for False Creek North permits towers upto about 91 m (300 ft.). While building height does vary across thesite, the towers generally allow for more open space than would amid-rise building form. The taller buildings must conform to viewcorridors and generally be aligned with the existing street grid. Buildingheights typically step down toward the waterfront.

3. CityPlan, adopted by Council in 1995, promotes the development ofneighbourhoods with unique character.

4. The City of Vancouver Heritage Policies and Guidelines establish:a) That buildings, landscapes, streetscapes and archaeological sites

on the City’s heritage register have heritage significance andtheir protection should be promoted; and

b) That conditional uses, relaxation of regulations and densitybonusing can be considered in order to retain heritage buildings.

A protocol has been established for transferring density to make theretention of heritage buildings more economically feasible.


1. To develop SEFC in accordance with environmentally sustainablebuilding principles, including increasing energy and resourceefficiency, maintaining ecosystem health and minimizing waste andpollution.


2. To develop SEFC buildings with appropriate massing and height char-acteristics so as:a) To balance the economic and open-space needs and benefits of

height with the need for SEFC to integrate with the current andfuture characteristics of the adjacent neighbourhoods;

b) To optimize solar access to buildings and open space;c) To take advantage of views from the site;d) To provide a diversity of housing; ande) To provide a street level scale and facade treatment which

defines streets and is consistent with livability and safetyobjectives.

3. To develop SEFC so as to illuminate and celebrate the unique charac-ter of the site and its sub-areas.

4. To promote a fine-grained urban form that has a public realm which isactive, interesting and safe.

5. To preserve and enhance the heritage character of SEFC in the designand programming of its buildings, landscape and public realm.

9.4 NEW POLICY

The format of this section differs from the rest of the document so as tobetter present and respond to the issues. At the end of each policy, theassociated development stage is abbreviated in parentheses as follows: ODPPhase Policies (ODP); Rezoning Phase Policies (ReZ); Development andDesign Directives (Dev); Post-Development Initiatives (Post); and Dem-onstration Projects (Demo).

Building Strategy

1. The City, with advice from the development, engineering andarchitectural communities, should develop a “green building” strategyfor SEFC, which will also likely include guidelines. The primaryobjectives should be economic viability and the potential to transfer

2211 West 4th Ave: Designed with an innovative heat supply and managementsystem


the strategy’s elements to other developments in Vancouver and theregion (ReZ).

2. Roof gardens should be conceived of as part of the site’s ecosystem.They should be designed to offer green space for recreation, toaccommodate urban agriculture, to provide habitat for native speciesand to reduce runoff.

Height

Building height should be allowed in a manner as generally set out in theproposed height zones map below, noting that discussion will continue aspart of the ODP process, where the maximum heights will be decided andset out in the ODP by-law.

For the lands zoned FC-1, between Quebec and Main streets, and Terminaland 1st avenues:

3. The urban design vision for this area should continue to be implementedin accordance with the East False Creek Plan, thereby permitting aseries of towers up to 83.3 m (275 ft.) high near Terminal Avenuestepping down gradually in height toward 1st Avenue (ODP).

For the City lands north of 1st Avenue:

4. The building heights permitted in the East False Creek Plan shouldcontinue around the end of the Creek and extend on to the lands westof Quebec Street. Towers of up to 76.2 m (250 ft.) should be permitted,providing that they are designed to minimize shadowing on publicopen space and on the waterfront pedestrian-bicycle system. Streetsshould be defined by lower building forms and tower bases (ODP).

5. In the central portion of the site and along the waterfront, where largeareas are dedicated to public use, the buildings should be low withheights up to 15.2 m (50 ft.) (ODP).

6. Recognizing that there are existing higher buildings to the west ofCambie Bridge, buildings on the western portion of the site should beof medium height, up to 45.5 m (150 ft.). Higher buildings should belocated to the south, closer to 1st Avenue, to minimize the shadowingon public open space and on the waterfront pedestrian-bicycle system(ODP).

7. Solar access and shading should be an important consideration forshaping form and urban design. However it should not be the onlyconsideration and must be balanced with other design objectives (ODPand ReZ).

For the private lands within the study area, between 1st and 2nd avenues:

8. Height and massing should be integrated with what is proposed on theCity lands to the north as follows: (ODP)a) Higher buildings to the east of up to 76.2 m (250 ft.); andb) Medium heights to the west of up to 45.7 m (150 ft.).

Proposed Height Zones in SEFC


9. All street edges in this area should be defined with lower buildingelements having a minimum height of two storeys along 1st Avenueand three storeys along 2nd Avenue (ODP).

Character

10. Several distinct neighbourhood character areas should be recognizedacross the study area (ReZ), including:a) The eastern end of the site — the area roughly bounded by

Ontario, Main, 2nd and Terminal;b) The southern edge of the site, running along the blocks between

1st and 2nd Avenues;c) The western end of the site, close to Cambie Bridge and the

South False Creek neighbourhood; andd) The central portion of the site.

11. Development guidelines should recognize differences in character ofeach sub-area, while seeking to unify the site as a neighbourhood withan overall distinct character (ReZ).

12. Where residential use is permitted along 1st Avenue, all buildingsshould have a strong sense of unit identification and entry. Buildingsmay be set back to permit landscaping (ReZ).

13. A fine-grained urban form should be maintained throughout the entirestudy area:a) through design; andb) by providing a variety of parcel sizes.Smaller parcel sizes will provide opportunities for more incrementaldevelopment and for a wider range of designers to be involved increating SEFC. Smaller parcels should be located, where feasible, inlocations with high public activity and visibility (ReZ).

14. In all areas, particular attention should be paid to the interface andtransition between public and private space. A high quality streetscapeis essential for urban design continuity, for visual interest and character,for area definition, for a sense of landscape and for accessibility forall (Dev).

17. The design of lower buildings along 1st and 2nd avenues should rec-ognize the historical and industrial context of the area (Dev).

18. Towers should be designed with neighbourhood identity in mind. Careshould be taken to ensure a slim appearance and tower tops should bestepped with distinct roofs (Dev).

Proposed Character Zones in SEFC

15. Residential streets should be defined by buildings, and units shouldbe easily identifiable, with as many doors and windows from as manyindividual units as possible facing directly onto the street (Dev).

16. For industrial development, buildings should have little or no setback,and where possible, should incorporate windows which display theservice or product of the business. There should be a strong sense ofentry. Windows should be large and include displays (Dev).


Heritage

19. The rich heritage value of SEFC should be celebrated and enhancedwhere possible, by preserving and reusing existing industrial andhistorical buildings, and by reflecting the heritage character of SEFCin the design of the built form and of the public open spaces (ReZ).

20. The retention of privately owned, economically viable buildings with

heritage merit should be encouraged. The City should explore methodsto achieve this by supporting a mixture of use, including live-work,and by considering building code relaxations and the use of HeritageDensity Bonuses (ReZ).

21. The City-owned Domtar Salt Building should be retained forcommunity and/or cultural uses. If possible, it should remain in itshistorical context (Dev).

Heritage in SEFC: The Best Cleaners Building


The Domtar Salt Building: The heart of the SEFC neighbourhood at Manitoba and 1st Avenue


10. Views

10.1 ISSUES

1. What are the key views into, out of and around SEFC which needpreserving? What are the key vantage points which should be exam-ined?

2. Should northerly views of the water and mountains be preserved fromall vantage points or just from the street ends? Should some views besaved and expanded as a trade-off for reducing others?

3. Should views from public places toward significant mountain features,such as The Lions, be protected?

4. What other objectives should be considered when making economicand environmental trade-offs associated with preserving views?

10.2 EXISTING POLICY

1. The 1989 False Creek Policy Statement recommended that views ofthe water, mountains, and other landmark views from residences, publicspaces, bridges and streets, should be considered when planning theFalse Creek Basin.

2. The 1984 East False Creek Plan addressed a northerly view downMain Street.

3. In 1989, Council adopted view protection guidelines to protect selectedpublic views. Several view corridors extend over parts of SEFC,including one of the North Shore Mountains from Cambie Street nearCity Hall and another of the North Shore from Main Street at 6thAvenue. How these views are impacted by development is addressedon a site-by-site basis.

4. The 1990 False Creek North Official Development Plan included aview corridor from 10th Avenue and Cambie Street.

5. The Bridgehead Guidelines, adopted by Council in 1997, establish a7.6-m zone east of the Cambie Bridge where no development is to

take place. For another 7.6 m east of that zone, development is not toexceed three storeys. East of that zone, for an area extending to 200 mfrom the bridge, development is to be limited to a maximum of fourstoreys. For SEFC these regulations were intentionally conservative,recognizing that they might be amended following more in-depthanalysis to be completed during the planning process.


1. To preserve important views of the city skyline, the mountains andkey landmarks from SEFC, as well as views over the site from keyvantage points nearby.

10.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. A view analysis should be completed for SEFC during the ODP phaseto identify view issues and impacts on the surrounding neighbourhoods,as well as on development options. The analysis should address bothpublic and private views, with the objectives of preserving key viewsfrom public spaces and of providing for an equitable sharing of viewopportunities amongst private developments.

2. Consideration should be given to important northerly views of thecity skyline and of the mountains from along north-south streets,particularly from along Main and Cambie streets.

3. The bridgehead guideline, which imposes a four-storey height limitwithin 200 m of the Cambie Bridge, should be reviewed during theODP process with consideration for SEFC’s urban design and densityobjectives. Views to built landmarks, such as the Science World domeand the Plaza of Nations glass pavilion, should also be examined fromvantage points both in and beyond the SEFC study area.


Morning view from Charleson Park in South False Creek


Parks and Open Space: The recreational and ecological infrastructure of a city

Part C – Open Space 39

PART C – OPEN SPACEOpen space in SEFC will connect the housing to amenities and services, as well as toadjacent communities, thereby providing the context for public life in this neighbourhood.It will be designed in such a way as to promote social interaction, a diverse ecosystem, ahigh degree of neighbourhood livability and a healthy local economy.


11. Parks and Public Open Space

11.1 ISSUES

1. Where, in what amount, and in what configuration should parks andother public open spaces be provided to serve residents, workers andvisitors in SEFC?

2. How should the parks in SEFC be designed and programmed to providethe necessary services to SEFC residents and visitors, as well as toadd to the overall range of services offered to Vancouverites indowntown parks?

3. What kind of park spaces are suitable to meet recreational andecological needs in a sustainable neighbourhood:a) small pocket parks?b) linear greenways?c) large playing fields?d) planned natural habitat areas?e) waterfront areas?

4. Should the park standards required in False Creek North and CoalHarbour be the same for SEFC or should they be different?

5. How can we maximize the biodiversity of the parks and open space inSEFC while reducing energy and water use in their maintenance?


1. The Mount Pleasant Community Development Plan, adopted byCouncil in 1987, set goals and recommendations:a) To acquire and develop park space in critical locations in the

Mount Pleasant community;b) To develop pedestrian walkways, to add mini-parks to public

rights-of-way and to supplement open space deficiencies inMount Pleasant; and

c) To develop a connection to Creekside Park next to Science Worldfrom the foot of Ontario Street, as well as to anchor the proposedpedestrian walkway planned for 2nd Avenue, west to Wylie Street.

2. In August 1989, a standard requirement of 1.11 hectares (2.75 acres)of park space per 1,000 residents was adopted for False Creek Northdevelopment (ODP).

3. In September 1990, the same park standard was adopted for CoalHarbour but it included a proviso that the total area of park and publicopen space comprise at least 40% of the site (ODP).

4. The Central Area Plan, adopted by Council in 1991, established severalgoals for the downtown including:a) To enhance the Central Area by reflecting nature in urban design

and by providing a strong connection to the magnificent naturalsetting; and

b) To maintain and improve the City’s environmental quality.

The waterfront walkway-bikeway near Granville Island



1. To promote health and a good quality of life for residents and visitorsin SEFC by providing park and open space in SEFC to meet thediversity of ecological and recreational needs, both passive and active,associated with a sustainable urban neighbourhood.

2. To develop parks in SEFC which provide the neighbourhood with aresilient ecological infrastructure, including space for urban agriculture,wildlife habitat and surface water management, in such a way as torequire little or no fossil fuels, potable water or chemicals duringmaintenance.

3. To connect the parks and open space in SEFC to the network of parksand open space in surrounding neighbourhoods and nearby greenways.

4. To design the parks and open space to celebrate SEFC’s uniqueheritage, to provide for cultural and artistic uses, and to ensure that allspaces and amenities are fully accessible and promote safety.

5. To ensure that SEFC park costs are allocated equitably.

11.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. The City supports a target for the SEFC study area of providing aminimum of 1.11 hectares (2.75 acres) of park space per 1,000residents. Some of the park will be provided as part of an amenitypackage associated with comprehensive development planned in thelands north of 1st Avenue. DCLs (Development Cost Levies) appliedto the privately owned lands in SEFC may also be used as a fundingmechanism to provide park amenities.

2. Park space calculations should include areas dedicated to uses suchas:a) A community centre and its site;b) Boating facilities;c) Outdoor performance spaces;

d) A demonstration garden and smaller community gardens;e) Habitat areas, where they offer public amenities; andf) Surface runoff systems, providing they offer public amenity and

do not significantly limit other uses of park land.Criteria for including park uses in the above target should include:a) Increasing public access to all public park space;b) Increasing public utility;c) Increasing public benefit; andd) Conserving areas for active use.

3. Park space calculations should exclude (in a manner similar toexclusions in False Creek North):a) The 10.7-m (35-ft.) required width of the walkway-bikeway

along the waterfront; andb) A 7.6-m (25-ft.) wide setback area between buildings and the

walkway-bikeway.

Team sports at David Lam Park in False Creek North


4. Parks in SEFC should be designed to not only address conventionalobjectives and uses of park space but also to profile environmentallysustainable principles.

5. Parks in SEFC should be located and designed to connect convenientlyto other public open spaces, such as streets, greenways and bike routes,so as to link SEFC internally and to nearby neighbourhoods.

6. Smaller parks should be provided near residential buildings, as focalpoints for public life.

7. Heavily used areas of the parks and public open spaces in SEFC shouldbe located and designed to optimize sun exposure during midday, fromspring to autumn.


8. Parks should conveniently serve community facilities and housing inSEFC, and should include a wide range of active and passive uses thatare appropriate for all age groups, especially children.

9. The unique industrial and cultural heritage of SEFC should becelebrated in the open space design. The artifacts salvaged from theCanron Building should be positioned in a prominent public space.

10. Enhancing the ecological performance of park space in SEFC shouldbe a key objective for park design, including initiatives such as:a) Utilizing the park space to convey runoff to False Creek. These

new urban stream systems should be designed, where feasible, toaid in increasing the quality of the runoff before it reaches FalseCreek; and

b) Encouraging the provision of wildlife and bird habitatthroughout the site, especially as linear corridors to providecontinuity of habitat.


11. Community gardens should be permitted in public parks whereappropriate.

12. The Park Board should encourage the establishment of a demonstrationgarden in SEFC and other educational initiatives such as interpretiveprograms and exhibits in conjunction with other organizations.

13. The Park Board should develop the program for the parks in SEFC tofocus primarily on the needs of SEFC residents.

14. Parks in SEFC should be designed in accordance with principles ofuniversal access and barrier-free design. The principles of CPTED(Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) should also beconsidered in the park design guidelines.

The gantry crane from the former Canron Building will be re-erected in a publicspace in SEFC to commemorate the shipbuilding heritage of the site


A children’s playground in high-density family housing

Parks need to offer spaces for both active and passive recreation

Walking dogs is one of the most frequent activities in Vancouver parks

Parks and public spaces promote health, well-being and diversity


15. A sense of publicness in the SEFC open space should be enhanced byestablishing visual and pedestrian connections between open spaces,plazas, streets and the waterfront.

16. Integration of public art into the design of parks and public open spacesshould be encouraged.

17. Some park space should provide opportunities for quiet reflection andspiritual rejuvenation.

18. The development of outdoor performance spaces for cultural andcommunity groups should also be encouraged.

19. The Park Board should develop a strategy to reduce dependence onpotable water and chemical applications in the maintenance of SEFCparks.

City Farmer demonstration garden at 2150 Maple St.

Small parks provide focal points for surrounding residential buildings


New urban streams can be created by managing runoff on the surface


12. Water Basin and Shoreline

12.1 ISSUES

1. What types of water access are needed to meet the recreational needsof residents and visitors in SEFC and Mount Pleasant?

2. How can the design of the SEFC waterfront increase the ecologicaldiversity and health of the site?

3. How can the objectives to increase the quality and quantity of habitatfor native species be balanced with the variety of needs for waterrecreation?

4. Can the waterfront be designed to accommodate a large pedestrianand bicycle path system along with an intertidal marsh?

5. Should a priority be given to non-motorized recreational craft on theSEFC waterfront?

6. What implications does soil contamination have on waterfront design?7. Should commercial areas extend to the waterfront from 1st Avenue?8. Should industrial or residential barges be allowed as part of the SEFC

waterfront?


1. Waterfront policy developed between 1972 and 1974 recommendedbalancing cut and fill along the existing shoreline, stabilizing the shoreand maintaining irregular alignments.

2. Policies developed in 1981 and 1982 recommended maintaining thesense of a large expanse of water in False Creek.

3. Policies in 1987 recommend establishing the 1987 shoreline as thebase to which cut and fill should be balanced.

4. The Mount Pleasant Community Development Plan (1987)recommended that a park be established at the foot of Ontario Streetto allow Mount Pleasant residents convenient access to False Creek.

5. The Central Area Plan, adopted by Council in 1991, sets goals for theCentral Area, including developing connections to Vancouver’s naturalsetting and maintaining and improving the City’s environmental quality.


1. To maintain the extent of the water basin.2. To enhance the recreational uses and ecological quality of the water’s

edge in SEFC.3. To ensure that the waterfront zone is designed to be accessible and

well linked with surrounding areas.4. To ensure that any changes to the existing shoreline are beneficial to

the aesthetic, recreational and ecological quality of False Creek.5. To enable the SEFC development to support the uses of non-motorized

craft in False Creek.

Hand-powered watercraft in False Creek


12.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. The False Creek shoreline should be preserved in its currentconfiguration, except where modifications result in increasedrecreational, aesthetic or ecological quality and diversity. Cut and fillshould be balanced.

2. The SEFC waterfront should be planned to link closely with the restof Vancouver’s waterfront.

3. Any marinas or boating facilities in SEFC should cater to non-motorized craft.

4. The City should encourage the establishment of passenger ferry stopswhich are conveniently linked to land-based transportation and to otherwaterfront destinations in False Creek. Achieving this policy mayinvolve discussions and agreements with ferry companies and theGVTA.

5. The waterfront design should be integrated with the overall watermanagement strategy for SEFC, including surface-runoff managementsystems (see Water Management Policies).


6. The waterfront should be designed to be publicly accessible and aprincipal amenity space for both SEFC residents and for the city as awhole.

7. Active, water-oriented recreational opportunities in SEFC should beencouraged through provision of a pier along the waterfront, as wellas facilities, possibly associated with a community centre, toaccommodate non-motorized craft, such as kayaks, dragon boats, nativecanoes and small sailboats.

8. The waterfront opportunities identified by the City’s Bluewayscommittee should be considered, including opportunities for small-boat industry, small non-motorized boat moorage, storage for hand-powered craft and others.


9. Primary seawall areas should be designed to be accessible to all,including people using wheelchairs (see Parks and Transportationsections).

10. The shoreline should be designed to offer a diversity of aestheticexperiences through the use of a range of materials and dimensions.

11. The heritage value of the SEFC waterfront should be highlighted inits design, including past industrial uses and the original location ofthe shoreline.

12. The water’s edge, where feasible, should be planned and designed toincrease the biodiversity, health and productivity of natural habitat.This may entail establishing naturalized areas, an estuary, marsh orother intertidal habitat. Achieving this policy may involve discussionsand agreements with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks,and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

13. Possibilities should be explored to create a beach along or adjacent tothe SEFC waterfront as a park amenity.


14. Permanent barges, whether commercial, residential or industrial, shouldbe discouraged in the east end of False Creek. However, when thewater in False Creek meets swimming standards, the possibility ofhaving swimming rafts should be considered.

15. To prevent combined-sewer overflow from entering False Creek, theCity should continue to pursue sewer-separation work. This east endof False Creek should be given a high priority for these initiatives.


A pedestrian-oriented neighbourhood

Part D – Transportation and Circulation 49

PART D – TRANSPORTATIONAND CIRCULATION

The transportation network in SEFC will greatly shape the neighbourhood’s form andlivability. Developing transportation and circulation systems, which focus on pedestrianand bicycle paths and transit linkages, is of primary importance in ensuring a livable andenvironmentally sustainable waterfront neighbourhood.


13. Pedestrian Access and the WaterfrontWalkway-Bikeway

13.1 ISSUES

1. What north-south and east-west links between SEFC and its adjacentneighbourhoods should be reinforced by the pedestrian and bikewaysystem?

2. How should the waterfront pedestrian-bicycle system and otherpedestrian paths connect to existing networks, including the Ontarioand 1st Avenue bikeways?

3. How should the barriers that arterial streets pose to pedestrians andcyclists be addressed — specifically the barriers posed by Quebecand Main streets and by 2nd Avenue?

4. Does the location of the continuous walkway have to be along thewater’s edge? Some uses, such as commercial or ecological habitat,could provide variety on the water’s edge and result in the walkway-bikeway being located slightly inland.

5. Should a consistent design treatment on the walkway-bikeway bepursued to foster unity, public identity and ease of maintenance, orcan a balance between activity, diversity and continuity be struck? Avariety of experiences can be created along the walkway-bikeway bydifferent treatments and shoreline modifications which alter the shapeand direction of the path.

6. How can the walkway-bikeway be designed to minimize conflictsbetween all users, including pedestrians, cyclists and in-line skaters?


1. Between 1972 and 74, the City committed to a policy of maintainingwaterfront access around the entire Creek with pedestrian and bicyclepathways. Walkway widths and elevations are allowed to vary. A 7.6-m(25-ft.) minimum walkway width was established in South False Creek.

2. Between 1981 and 82, the walkway-bikeway corridor was increasedto include a 7.6-m (25-ft.) path width and a minimum 7.6 m (25 ft.) ofsetback area to buildings.

3. The Granville Slopes waterfront walkway was developed with a 7.6-m(25-ft.) width.

4. In the early 1990s, the walkway-bikeway width in False Creek Northand Coal Harbour was increased to 10.7 m (35 ft.).

5. In 1991, Council adopted the Central Area Plan which establishedgoals and policies including: “Enhance the Central Area as a placewhere pedestrians move safely, easily, and comfortably on all streetsand where walking, supplemented by transit and bicycles, is the primarymeans of moving around.”

6. In 1995, Council adopted CityPlan, which puts the priority of walking,cycling and transit ahead of cars, and promotes the development ofpedestrian- and bicycle-friendly streets.Separation of pedestrian and non-pedestrian modes in parallel paths


7. In 1997, Council adopted the Transportation Plan which “...placespedestrians as the first priority in transportation planning.”


1. To complete the SEFC segment of Vancouver’s waterfront pedestrian-bicycle system.

2. To enhance connections throughout SEFC and across the arterial streetsto shopping and adjacent neighbourhoods, including nearby greenwaysand bikeways.

3. To offer residents and visitors in SEFC a variety of recreationalexperiences along the waterfront, while enhancing the ecological healthof the water’s edge.

4. To ensure access and safety for all users of the waterfront path system.

13.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. A continuous public pedestrian-bicycle path system should be locatedat or near the water’s edge in SEFC. It should be linked to the existingSeaside Route and designed to separate pedestrian and cyclistcirculation as needed. The overall width of the walkway-bikeway,including the setback area, should be a minimum 18.3 m (60 ft.), exceptfor variations to achieve other public interests and commercial, urbandesign and habitat enhancement objectives.

2. A diverse network of pedestrian and bicycle paths should be providedthrough the site and the adjacent neighbourhoods, linking thewaterfront, the public parks, the community facilities, the localcommercial uses, the passenger ferry system and the transit connections(especially to SkyTrain, the Cambie Street buses and future rapidtransit on Broadway). Routes should be designed to be convenientand direct.


3. Public access to the waterfront should be a primary objective (seeParks Policies).

4. The treatment of the pedestrian-bicycle system should reflect theoverall objectives of achieving a major public presence on thewaterfront, by incorporating a diversity of activities and opportunitiesfor recreational use of the water, and by increasing the ecological healthand diversity of the waterfront habitat.

5. Variations in design treatment should be permitted at points whereother public or environmental objectives take precedence.

6. Safety and convenience should be ensured along all walkways-bikeways, in order to accommodate all users, including people withdisabilities. This may require separation of the modes, particularly inhigh traffic areas such as along the waterfront.

Young children enjoying mobility along the Coal Harbour walkway-bikeway


14. Transportation and Streets

14.1 ISSUES

1. How can the transportation and street network in SEFC be designedand developed to emphasize pedestrians, cyclists and transit, whilefacilitating convenient access to destinations within the neighbourhood,the city and the region?

2. While road access to the site should enhance links with adjacentcommunities, what can be done to discourage through traffic? Whattraffic-calming measures are appropriate in SEFC?

3. How can the streets be designed to accommodate vehicles but alsoclearly demonstrate the priorities of walking and cycling? Can someother areas of Vancouver, such as South False Creek, Granville Islandor Gastown provide guidance in the design of flexible, pedestrian-oriented streets?

4. What innovative street design principles, either untried or used in otherparts of Vancouver, could be used in SEFC to achieve narrower, morepedestrian-friendly streets while accommodating service andemergency vehicles, and private automobiles?

5. Can 1st Avenue accommodate a commuter bicycle route?6. What cyclist facilities should be provided in SEFC to promote cycling

and who should pay for them?7. Should there be designated bicycle lanes on SEFC streets?8. What convenience, frequency and quality of transit service is required

to increase the ridership of SEFC residents and visitors significantlyabove regional or city averages?

9. How will higher amenity streets and their maintenance be funded?10. How should the design of streets in the predominantly residential areas

differ from the streets designed to accommodate the traffic associatedwith commercial and industrial uses?

11. How can access to the waterfront for recreational activities be providedso as to preserve intertidal habitat areas as well as pedestrian and cyclistsafety, access and convenience?

12. How can the road network in SEFC be designed to reduce crime?13. Can a pedestrian ferry system serving SEFC be linked to transit?14. Where should new pedestrian and traffic signals be provided?15. How should the Downtown Streetcar integrate with street design in

SEFC?


1. In 1989, Council adopted the Mount Pleasant Traffic ManagementPlan, which recommended investigation of a major road connectionfrom the Kingsway to Quebec Street, known as the “QuebecConnector”.

2. In 1990, Council adopted the Clouds of Change policy whichrecommended that the City:a) Reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 20% of 1988 levels by

2005;b) Favour high-occupancy vehicles;c) Increase the ease and accessibility of bicycle transportation,

through protected bicycle commuting routes and improvingbicycle-transit connections; and

d) Support telecommunication technologies which reduce the needfor transportation.

3. In 1995, Council adopted CityPlan which recommends:a) Emphasizing transit, walking and cycling;b) Improving transit service;c) Providing better pedestrian and bicycle connections to

neighbourhood centres;d) Providing more facilities for cyclists; ande) Discouraging automobile use.


4. In 1997, Council adopted the Transportation Plan which recommends:a) Encouraging alternatives to the car for neighbourhood

transportation;b) Emphasizing walking and cycling in the downtown;c) Providing safe and convenient road crossings for pedestrians;d) Allocating more space for cyclists;e) Developing bike lanes as a top priority;f) Ensuring bikeways and cycling facilities are visible;g) Encouraging the provision of a high standard of bicycle facilities

in commercial and residential developments;h) Improving the frequency, comfort and convenience of transit

services;i) Increasing transit to the downtown;j) Allocating more road space to transit;k) Using smaller “community” buses and custom services where

big buses are not warranted;l) Calming traffic in neighbourhoods; and

m) Accommodating goods movement without increasing roadcapacity.

5. Two potential future transit corridors exist on the western edge of thesite next to the Cambie Bridge. Rights-of-way for these corridors havebeen registered on the north side of False Creek, as part of 1993 sub-area rezonings in False Creek North.


1. To provide for the access and mobility needs of residents and visitorsin SEFC, in such a way as to promote neighbourhood livability,convenience, safety, and a modal shift from cars to pedestrians, bicyclesand transit.

2. To ensure adequate access to businesses for customers and themovement of goods.

3. To ensure emergency access to all buildings and to public open space.4. To ensure that, in meeting transportation objectives, other social, eco-

nomic and environmental objectives are considered, especially in streetdesign.

14.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. A network of streets should be developed in SEFC, generally basedon extending northward the existing street grid located to the south.

2. The City should develop the Downtown Streetcar system throughSEFC, with linkages to Granville Island, the downtown, the SkyTrainstation at Science World, and with other city and regional transitconnections. Achieving this policy will require discussions andagreements with the GVTA.

Pedestrian and bicycle path network near Granville Island



3. As ranked priorities, the transportation network in SEFC should addresspedestrians, bicycles, transit (including ferries), goods movement andthen automobiles.

4. The design of the street network in SEFC should allow good vehicularpenetration while discouraging through-traffic.

5. Walking and cycling should be encouraged by connecting pathwaysfrom all buildings in a safe, convenient way to transit stops, tocommunity and commercial areas and to bicycle routes.

6. Streets should minimize paved surfaces where possible, to reduceimpermeability, to reduce embodied energy and to encourage thecalming of traffic.

7. Pedestrian and bicycle connections should be made to the waterfrontpath system, particularly across Quebec and Main streets and across2nd Avenue.

8. East-west and north-south commuter bike routes should be incorporatedin SEFC, with good connections to the Cambie Bridge, to Quebec andMain streets and to the Ontario and Adanac Bikeways.

9. Trip-reduction measures should be encouraged in SEFC. These mayinclude promoting tele-commuting, providing live-work options andhaving builders supply fibre optics to residential buildings.


10. Where appropriate, paving surfaces should be given treatments thateffectively define spaces for pedestrians and bicycles.

11. The use of permeable paving materials should be considered.12. Links across Quebec Street from the False Creek Flats should be

encouraged so as to increase access to park and community facilitiesand to a potential school site. Long-term proposals which could increasetraffic, such as the Quebec Connector, should be thoroughly analysedand discussed with the public before being considered by City Council.

13. 2nd Avenue should be made more pedestrian friendly.14. Transit service improvements should come on stream at the same time

as the occupancy of new developments. Achieving this policy will

The Downtown Streetcar route is planned to pass through SEFC


require discussions and agreements with the GVTA.15. High levels of amenities for cyclists, both public and private, should

be provided in all areas of SEFC. They should include bike racks andother “end-of-trip” facilities, such as showers and lockers.

16. The development of a pedestrian-friendly public realm should beencouraged, through street design, lighting, landscaping andfurnishings.


17. The City should promote efficient transit service in SEFC incorporatingbuses, streetcars and ferries. Transit connections between SEFC, theBroadway Corridor and the downtown should be encouraged.Achieving this policy will require discussions and agreements withthe GVTA and the ferry companies.

18. Car co-ops and vanpooling initiatives should be encouraged in SEFC.

Providing bicycle pathways encourages people to choose cycling

Small passenger ferries link key points along False Creek

SkyTrain connects SEFC to the rest of the city and the region


15. Parking and Loading

15.1 ISSUES

1. Should the minimum parking requirements in SEFC match thoseapplied elsewhere around False Creek, or should they be lower?

2. What are the economic implications of lowering the parkingrequirements? To construction costs? To convenience and unitmarketability?

3. Will a reduction in available parking reduce vehicle trips to and fromSEFC?

4. Should resident and visitor parking in SEFC be provided in differentways than normal? In separate buildings?

5. How should the loading areas in SEFC be designed to integrate withthe pedestrian-oriented public realm?

6. How can car co-ops be implemented in a wide-reaching and effectiveway?

15.2 EXISTING POLICY?

1. The Clouds of Change report (1990) recommends using parking limitsand parking pricing as tools to reduce vehicle trips to employmentand business destinations.

2. Parking requirements are determined during the rezoning stage,generally in accordance with the Parking By-Law.

3. For the major projects in the downtown, parking requirements havebeen assessed by land use and need, with reductions based on proximityto transit service.

4. Parking reductions are possible for mixed-use developments that canrealize parking efficiencies, such as when various uses share the samespaces at different times of the day and week.

On-street parking calms traffic and increases parking opportunities for residentsand visitors



1. To provide the minimum parking supply needed to adequately serveSEFC.

2. To locate and design parking in such a way as to contribute toneighbourhood livability and environmental health while maintaininga practical level of convenience.

3. To promote flexibility and adaptability in parking structures to allowfor changes in use over time.

15.4 NEW POLICY


1. Minimum parking standards for SEFC should be based on a full as-sessment of the site’s requirements. Consideration should be givennot only to the target market, but also to: the proximity and availabil-ity of transit; planned trip-reduction measures; shared off-peak park-ing; and pedestrian and bicycle linkages from the site to adjacent neigh-bourhoods and the downtown.

2. On-street parking should be provided on most streets to increase park-ing opportunities and to serve as a traffic-calming measure.

3. Consolidated parking should also be considered, including that inabove-grade parking structures, provided that the structures:a) Meet urban design objectives;b) Provide for active, pedestrian-oriented uses at grade level, such

as retail and service;c) Integrate in an appropriate manner into the context in which they

are located; andd) Are located so as to minimize the unnecessary intrusion of large

numbers of cars into the site.4. Where soils and water-table conditions impose onerous constraints,

consideration may be given to excluding above-grade parking fromdensity (FSR) calculations.

5. Some public parking should be provided to support waterfrontamenities, particularly catering to those who use vehicles to bringbicycles or small non-motorized boats.

6. Short-term “drop-off and pick-up” parking and loading areas shouldbe provided for residential, commercial and recreational uses, includingwaterfront uses.


7. Transportation Demand Management plans should be promoted tofurther reduce traffic and parking demand. These plans should includemeasures such as car co-ops, carpooling, tele-commuting andemployer-assisted transit programs.


8. If above-grade parking structures are pursued for SEFC, theirconvertibility in the future to other uses should be considered in theway they are initially designed, addressing such issues as floor-to-ceiling height and other relevant features.


Ecological infrastructure elements such as water, habitat and trees are important parts of a sustainable urban neighbourhooddesign

Part E – Environment 59

PART E – ENVIRONMENTSEFC will be a neighbourhood which helps protect the local and global environment byusing less energy and water, by reducing waste and pollution, by minimizing air emissions,and by maintaining healthy soils and habitats for plants and animals. Goals forenvironmental protection and enhancement, as set out in this section, have helped shapeall policies for SEFC.


16. Energy Use

16.1 ISSUES

1. What sources of renewable energy can be utilized in SEFC? How canthese sources be maximized?

2. What sources of non-renewable energy could be considered in SEFC?How can these resources be used more efficiently?

3. Should solar energy production be pursued in SEFC? Is currentphotovoltaic technology a worthwhile large-scale investment at thislatitude and in our climate? If not, is this technology worthwhile as ademonstration project?

4. How should SEFC address the issue of diversified energy sources?5. Should SEFC address future needs to expand provincial, regional and

local energy infrastructure?6. Can energy efficient “green buildings” be developed at a cost which

can be recovered through operational savings over a reasonable periodof time?

7. Can we plan and design SEFC to be able to take advantage of futureenvironment-friendly innovations in energy technology?


1. The City’s Energy Utilization By-law requires all new buildings, exceptsingle family homes and duplexes, to meet ASHRAE Standard 90.1,which is a North American benchmark for energy performance inbuildings.

2. The Clouds of Change report (1990) recommended that the City:a) Adopt energy-efficient land-use policies; andb) Implement an energy conservation bylaw for commercial and

multi-family residential construction.

A diagram from the 1998 Design Charrette: Rethinking the urban energy cycle


3. Council adopted Vancouver’s Transportation Plan in 1997, whichincludes many recommendations to reduce energy consumption relatedto transportation (see the Transportation section of this policystatement).


1. To utilize a range of strategies to significantly increase energyefficiency in SEFC buildings, infrastructure, transportation and openspace, as compared to the efficiency of conventional development inVancouver.

2. To explore and demonstrate, in conjunction with BC Hydro, innovativeand renewable, non-fossil energy technologies in SEFC, especiallythose technologies which might have applications to otherdevelopments in the city.

Rationale: Consumption of fossil fuels depletes a non-renewableresource and releases toxins into the environment. Combustionof fossil fuels contributes to the global greenhouse effect andlocal air pollution. Under the Kyoto Protocol, Canada has agreedto reduce its average annual emissions of greenhouse gases to6% below 1990 levels by 2012.

3. To ensure that energy supply systems in SEFC are reliable and can beadapted to take advantage of future energy technologies.

16.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. In consultation with BC Hydro and the developer, the City shoulddevelop an energy plan for SEFC, which may address issues such as:a) Renewable energy technology;b) Regulatory issues;c) Building and infrastructure design;d) Landscape design;e) Costs;f) Opportunities for collaboration with energy supply companies,

senior governments and industry;g) Education for stakeholders; andh) Using City-owned buildings as sites for demonstration projects

featuring advanced energy-efficient design.


17. Water Management – Supply andSewers

17.1 ISSUES

1. How fast will growth in the region exceed the current capacity of itsreservoirs to supply freshwater?

2. What are the environmental impacts of increasing our water supply?3. How far should SEFC go to demonstrate methods of reducing water

use?4. Should greywater recycling systems be pursued? How much will

greywater recycling systems cost to design, install, operate andmaintain? What regulatory and liability obstacles exist with thesesystems?

5. Should rainwater collection and storage be pursued, as well as surfacerunoff management systems? What are the cost implications of suchsystems? What effects do soil contamination and the proximity to sealevel have on the design of surface runoff management systems?

6. Should potable water be used for landscape irrigation? What methodsare available to reduce water use in the landscape?

7. Should decentralized blackwater (sewage) treatment systems beexplored? What additional capital and maintenance costs will be facedby pursuing a small sewage treatment facility in SEFC? How does thecost of decentralized sewage treatment compare to maintaining orupgrading the existing sewage infrastructure? Who would own andoperate the system and who would be liable in case of accident orfailure?

8. Would a decentralized blackwater treatment system in SEFC be moresustainable than the current centralized system?


1. The Vancouver Building Bylaw was amended in 1995 to includerequirements for low-flow fixtures as a means of conserving water.

2. The Central Area Plan (1991) set a goal of maintaining and improvingenvironmental quality in the Central Area.

3. CityPlan (1995) recommends that the City:a) Use incentives, education, promotion, fees and regulations to

encourage individuals and businesses to help improve theenvironment and conserve resources;

b) Reduce combined-sewage overflows by continuing to separatestorm runoff and sanitary sewer systems; and

c) Expand waste reduction and water conservation programs.

Surface water management system meeting other aesthetic and biodiversityobjectives


4. Vancouver has initiated demonstration and public education programson water conservation and ecological landscaping. Included is a subsidyfor rain barrels to intercept and store residential roof runoff.

5. Vancouver introduced a Source Control Bylaw to reduce dischargesof contaminated waste into the sewer system.


1. To investigate, and possibly implement, technologies and strategiesin SEFC which do not significantly raise costs or diminish the qualityof life, but which reduce the use of potable water in all types of landuse.

Rationale: Reducing water consumption can reduce the need forcostly infrastructure expansion, both for water supply and forwaste-water treatment. Residential consumption accounts forapproximately 50% of Vancouver’s total potable water use. Theaverage residential water use in Vancouver is 315 litres/person/day, including indoor and outdoor uses. Toilets, showers, laundryand kitchen uses account for two thirds of indoor water use.

2. To manage surface runoff in SEFC so as: to increase the quality ofrunoff reaching False Creek; to increase on-site amenities; to reducethe need for irrigation; to increase the habitat value of the open space;and to increase the opportunities for learning about the site’s ecosystem,including the natural water cycle.

Rationale: Runoff from streets and other urban surfaces cancontain toxins and tends to occur in peak flows during storms.Managing precipitation runoff on the surface, through a range ofdesign elements such as swales and small reed ponds, can reducethe need for infrastructure, reduce erosive peak flows, andeliminate some toxins from runoff thereby delivering clean waterto the receiving water body. Surface water management systemscan be designed into parks.

C. K. Choi Building at UBC: Composting toilets reducing liquid waste


4. To use SEFC as an opportunity to promote and further educate citizensin Vancouver on existing water conservation measures that the Cityhas in place, including the rain barrel program and ecologically-basedlandscape design guidelines.

5. To reduce and control pollutants at their source, as much as possibleand wherever feasible.

17.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. The City, in consultation with the developer and the GVRD, shoulddevelop a neighbourhood water management plan for SEFC.This plan may address issues such as:a) Reducing potable water consumption;b) Landscape irrigation;c) Surface runoff management within the site’s catchment area;d) Water demand management;e) Water-use monitoring;f) Incentives;g) Efficiency of appliances;h) Greywater treatment and water recycling systems;i) Decentralized liquid-waste systems;j) Alternative sources of funding for new infrastructure;k) The liability and long-term operating costs; andl) Integration of this neighbourhood-level plan with the City’s and

the region’s water management plans.

Rainwater storage: reducing use of potable water in the landscape and savingmoney on future infrastructure

3. To explore, and possibly implement, methods of dealing with liquidwaste in SEFC in a manner which is feasible and meets economic,environmental, learning and livability objectives.

Comments: Decentralized liquid waste systems are availablewhich will decrease loading on the City’s and the region’s sewerinfrastructure. These systems may also provide the City with anopportunity to research the costs and benefits of alternative wastetreatment systems, which may be useful in other developments.However, as these systems may incur additional costs, mayduplicate existing systems and may not significantly increaseenvironmental performance, both the City and GVRD shouldplay a role in developing policy and criteria for this initiative.


An innovative idea from the 1998 Design Charrette for urban greywater treatment: A formal bioremediation pond as a park feature (Artist: Bob Worden)


18. Waste, Recycling and Composting

18.1 ISSUES

1. Vancouver’s landfill site has a limited capacity to store solid waste.2. What initiatives can be pursued in SEFC to reduce the amount of solid

waste destined for disposal?3. How can waste be used as a resource in SEFC?4. Can user-pay initiatives be promoted in SEFC to reduce waste

production?5. What initiatives can encourage responsible product stewardship for

businesses in SEFC?6. How can demolition and construction waste be best handled in SEFC?7. How should hazardous wastes be dealt with in SEFC?8. How can markets be found for waste products from SEFC?


1. The GVRD Solid Waste Management Plan (1995) commits eachmunicipality to a 50% per capita waste reduction over 1990 levels by2000. To achieve these levels, a ban on organic materials may beimplemented once suitable infrastructure is in place to deal with foodwaste. The City of Vancouver initiated a residential recycling programin 1989.

2. CityPlan (1995) recommends that the City:a) Use incentives, education, promotion, fees and regulations to

encourage individuals and businesses to help improve theenvironment and conserve resources;

b) Expand waste reduction programs; andc) Develop user-pay programs to reduce environmentally harmful

actions.

3. Vancouver has a Blue Box recycling program in residential areas. In1992, the City initiated a pilot apartment recycling program. Extensionof this program to all multi-family buildings was approved in 1998.

4. As of January 1998, a solid waste utility was approved to create auser-pay system for waste management in the City of Vancouver.

5. The GVRD has developed construction waste disposal guidelines.

Composting and Recycling Systems can greatly reduce landfill waste



1. To plan for a significant reduction in the amount of solid wastegenerated in SEFC, during the entire life cycle of the neighbourhood.

Facts: Approximately half of residential solid waste consists ofpackaging materials for household and business products. Thesecond largest category of waste from conventional residentialareas is organic materials (at approximately 30%), generated byfood preparation and landscape maintenance. The remainder ofthe waste stream consists of paper products and other discardedhousehold materials including small amounts of hazardous waste.

2. To divert as much of SEFC’s waste as possible from landfills orincinerators, into recycling and re-use systems.

Facts: The GVRD reported that the per-capita annual productionof waste was reduced from 860 kg/person/year in 1990 to 580kg/person/year in 1996 as a result of implementation of recyclingand education programs.

3. To divert from landfills as much demolition and construction waste aspossible during redevelopment of SEFC.

Facts: A significant amount of municipal waste (up to 40%)comes from demolition and construction waste. Depending onthe building method, residential and commercial construction cangenerate between 1.6 and 6.2 cubic metres of construction wasteper 100 m2 of floor space. Typically, 60% of construction wastecan be recycled with cost savings to the builder. If demolished,the existing industrial buildings in SEFC offer excellentopportunities to salvage and recycle materials. GVRD wastespecialists believe that up to 80% of waste materials generatedduring building demolition in SEFC could easily be redirectedfrom disposal in a cost-competitive manner.

4. To minimize the amount of transportation needed to deal with solidwaste and recyclable products from SEFC, and to maximize the localeconomic opportunities connected to dealing with SEFC waste.

18.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. The City should develop an integrated waste management plan forSEFC to minimize the amount of solid waste that is produced in SEFCor hauled off-site, during the entire life cycle of the neighbourhood.The plan should address issues and initiatives such as:a) Salvaging and recycling of construction and demolition waste;b) Centralized and decentralized composting systems for

household, landscape and commercial organic waste;c) The extension of multi-material recycling programs to all multi-

unit buildings in SEFC;d) Encouraging and enabling the use of recycled and salvaged

building materials in SEFC buildings, where feasible, includingmaterials from the deconstruction of existing buildings in thestudy area;

e) Education and incentive programs to encourage reduction, reuseand recycling;

f) Waste reduction systems and recommended voluntary practicesfor SEFC businesses;

g) Use and handling of hazardous wastes;h) User-pay strategies for waste management; andi) The possibility of establishing privately owned recycling depots

in SEFC.


19. Soils

19.1 ISSUES

1. Soil in the northwest portion of SEFC is contaminated with bothhydrocarbons and heavy metals. What strategies can the City use tomeet the provincial remediation standards in the most cost-effectivemanner?

2. What options exist for dealing with the contamination?3. How should the costs associated with soil contamination be met? The

proposed option is to use profit from development in SEFC to pay forthe remediation, provided that the development density needed togenerate such profit does not exceed the limits associated withachieving livability and environmental objectives.

4. How should the site’s soils be managed in the future?


1. The contaminated sites legislation of the Province, consisting of theWaste Management Act (1993) and the Contaminated Sites Regulation(1997), sets standards which must be met before the redevelopment ofcontaminated lands can occur. These standards take into account thenegative effects of contamination on both human and ecosystem health.


1. To use a range of strategies to deal with the contaminated soils inSEFC and in the most cost-effective manner.

2. To promote landscape practices which ensure healthy soils in the future.

Rationale: The soil forms the foundation of terrestrial ecosystemsand can often contain nearly 50% of the species in an ecosystem.

19.4 NEW POLICY

1. Prior to consideration of a zoning by-law which would permitdevelopment in SEFC, the developer must prepare a remediation planfor dealing with the contaminated soils and obtain a certificate ofcompliance from the Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks.The plan should address the objectives of economic viability andenvironmental health.

2. The City should develop a plan addressing future soil managementprinciples for SEFC, which also considers park maintenance.This plan may address issues such as:a) Planting design; andb) The use on site of composted organic matter from the

maintenance of SEFC parks and landscapes.

Remediation of contaminated soils is required prior to redevelopment


Industrial Soils: SEFC has been in industrial uses for a century


20. Air Quality

20.1 ISSUES

1. How can SEFC address concerns about urban air quality, climatechange and ozone depletion? How can harmful air emissions beminimized through the design of the development?

2. What airborne pollutants need to be addressed in both indoor andoutdoor spaces?

3. How can SEFC address Canada’s commitment to the Kyoto Protocolon greenhouse gas reduction?

4. What effects are Vancouver’s air emissions having on the region?5. How can SEFC address the use of ozone-depleting chemicals?


1. The Clouds of Change policies (1990) addressed many issues of localand regional air quality, making many recommendations relevant toSEFC. Subject to further studies and costing, the City should:a) Take responsibility for the carbon dioxide emissions generated

by its citizens, and by 2005, achieve a reduction of 20% from1988 levels of carbon dioxide emissions;

b) Phase out ozone-depleting chemicals;c) Promote a variety of measures to reduce transportation demand;d) Promote and assist the planting of trees on public and private

property; ande) Promote public education and involvement in initiatives to

reduce air emissions.2. The Central Area Plan (1991) established the goal for the Central

Area of maintaining and improving environmental quality.

3. CityPlan (1995) recommends that the City:a) Consider environmental impacts when making decisions on land

use, transportation and the City’s provision of services; andb) Participate in regional programs to improve drinking water

quality, sewage treatment and air quality.4. The Transportation Plan (1997) states that air pollution must be

addressed on a regional and neighbourhood basis by focusing onalternatives to the automobile for transportation.

5. The regional Air Quality Management Plan calls for a 38% reductionof five major air contaminants by the year 2000.


1. To develop SEFC in such a way as to minimize the emission of airpollutants, greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting chemicals, associatedwith the site’s development and operation.

Facts: Greenhouse gases include nitrous oxide, methane and mostimportantly, carbon dioxide. CO

2 accounts for nearly 80% of

Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions and 80% of these CO2

emissions come from burning fossil fuels. CO2 sources in

Vancouver are estimated to be:–36% from transportation use;–20% from residential use; and–20% from commercial and industrial use.

Facts: Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions damage the ozonelayer which filters solar UV radiation. CFCs trap heat in the earth’satmosphere 20,000 times more effectively than carbon dioxidedoes. A CFC molecule takes about 25 to 30 years to reach theozone layer and once there, destroys ozone molecules throughrepetitive chemical reactions for up to 60 years before the CFCmolecule becomes inert.


2. SEFC should demonstrate ways that community planning and designcan help Canada achieve its commitments to reduce greenhouse gasemissions.

Facts: Under the Kyoto Protocol, Canada has agreed to reduceits average annual emissions of greenhouse gases to 6% below1990 levels by 2012. The US Environmental Protection Agencyestimates that carbon emissions must be cut by 50 to 80% by themiddle of next century to stabilize climatic change processes.

3. To plan SEFC in such a way as to ensure that the interior air qualitywill also be healthy.

Rationale: Since Canadians spend nearly 90% of their livesindoors, interior air quality is an important health concern.

20.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. The City should create a neighbourhood air quality strategy for SEFCto minimize its contributions to greenhouse gases and air pollutionwhere feasible. The strategy may address issues such as:a) Greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting chemicals;b) Transportation;c) Landscape design and maintenance; andd) Education of stakeholders.

Developing neighbourhoods that have a reduced dependance on the automobile increases local and regional air quality


21. Urban Agriculture

21.1 ISSUES

1. How should SEFC address concerns about food security?2. Should gardens be used as spaces to encourage social interaction and

community building?3. Where in SEFC should garden spaces be located?4. What role can urban agriculture play in the economic development of

SEFC?5. How can growing food in SEFC meet other environmental goals like

reducing pollution and the use of energy and resources?6. If urban agriculture is pursued in SEFC, what produce should be

grown?7. Should some of the public park space be allocated for private garden

plots?


1. In 1975, the provincial government passed the Agricultural Land Act,creating the Agricultural Land Reserve, which stops the conversionof agricultural land to urban uses.

2. Environmental health regulations forbid the keeping of agriculturalanimals in the city.

3. The Greenways Plan (1992) calls for Vancouver to become a “city ofgardens” and for investigation into the possibility of urban agriculturebeing part of the programming of public spaces.

4. In 1995, the Vancouver Parks Board approved the development ofcommunity gardens.


1. To establish clarity on the role that food production should play in thedevelopment of a sustainable city and neighbourhood.

Rationale: The total amount of arable land decreases every yearin the world because of urbanization, desertification and erosion,while at the same time the world’s population is increasing. Withapproximately 50% of BC’s food supply coming from outside ofthe province (M. Quayle’s 1998 report for the BC Governmenton agricultural policy), the decrease in agricultural land in othercountries is of concern. Recognizing that a sustainable communityis planned with long time horizons, these trends indicate that anurban food production policy would be beneficial. Further studyis needed to establish clarity on the implications of foodproduction in an urban setting.

Urban gardens help to increase food security and build a sense of community


2. To use urban agriculture and community gardens to assist in meetingother social, environmental and economic objectives in SEFC.

Rationale: Urban agriculture and community gardens can havemany positive impacts on a neighbourhood including: improvingsoil productivity; increasing social interaction in theneighbourhood; providing an inexpensive way for individualswith low incomes to produce some food; increasing learning aboutnature in a city environment; and decreasing some of the energyconsumed and pollution produced in providing food to cityresidents.

21.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. An urban agriculture strategy should be developed for SEFC by theCity in consultation with the developer.This plan may consider issues such as:a) The city’s role and responsibility in securing a food supply for

its population;b) Opportunities and constraints with regard to urban agriculture

which can be reasonably addressed in SEFC;c) Gardening opportunities on private land, on rooftops, and in

public parks;d) Education for stakeholders; ande) Regulatory issues.

A space for education and social interaction


Sustainable urban developments are economically viable both today and in the long term. They simultaneously find ways to meet social and environmental objectives andthey address the long-term costs and benefits associated with development

Part F – Economic Development and Stewardship 75

PART F – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTAND STEWARDSHIP

SEFC will be a neighbourhood which demonstrates understanding and care for its natural,social and economic systems to ensure that it will prosper for many generations. It isthrough stewardship that the long-range vision for SEFC will be realized.


22. Economic Development

22.1 ISSUES

1. Within the mandate of creating a sustainable community, how can weensure that the SEFC development is economically viable?

2. How can we ensure that the sustainability initiatives undertaken inSEFC are transferable to other projects in Vancouver?

3. How should the costs of remediating contaminated soils be dealt within this development?

4. What time lines should be considered when rationalizing the greaterinitial cost of environmental features against the long-term savings inoperational efficiency?

5. What funding provisions can be made, within the City, with seniorgovernments and with the private sector, to support demonstrationprojects?

6. How can businesses in SEFC be encouraged to engage in green businesspractices such as recycling, using materials made or harvested in asustainable manner, etc? How can businesses stimulate markets forsustainable environment-friendly products and services? How cancradle-to-grave product stewardship programs be encouraged?

7. How can the neighbourhood economy in SEFC be strengthened throughenergy, resource and wealth circulation amongst on-site businesses?

8. How can stable and permanent jobs be established in SEFC?


1. CityPlan (1995) established a goal of a healthy city economy andincluded recommendations that the City:a) Encourage continued job growth at a rate that helps balance the

number of jobs located in the city with the number of workerswho reside there;

b) Encourage employment which provides services to city residentsto locate in the neighbourhood centres;

c) Ensure that retail space in the city supports the creation ofneighbourhood centres;

d) Involve local businesses and residents in planningneighbourhood centres that offer a range of jobs and servicesclose to home; and

e) Establish an overall employment target for the city and considerhow to attract jobs to neighbourhood centres.

2. The City and other levels of government have over a number of yearsconsidered social costs and benefits when financing the developmentof subsidized housing, arts and culture, institutions and health services.

3. Life-cycle costs are currently considered in the development andupgrading of the City’s infrastructure.


1. To make the SEFC community economically viable, recognizing theneed to use full-cost accounting techniques where important social,environmental or economic benefits may be realized over a term whichexceeds conventional development accounting practices.

2. To plan and develop SEFC to offer sufficient retail, commercial and(residential-friendly) industrial space to provide residents withopportunities for shopping and employment.

3. To encourage business practices in SEFC which are beneficial tosociety and to the environment.

22.4 NEW POLICY

ODP Phase Policies

1. Recognizing that SEFC will not be developed unless it’s plan iseconomically viable, decisions on the sustainable developmentinitiatives, on such aspects as infrastructure, soils and design, should

Part F – Economic Development and Stewardship 77

be made with the intent that the new practices will be transferred toother developments in the city.

2. Full-cost accounting should be considered as a tool to assist in decisionmaking in SEFC.

3. A seven year window should be considered reasonable to use inbuilding development proformas to calculate how any extra capitalcosts can be recouped from operating efficiencies, when technologyor design is used to achieve higher levels of efficiency andenvironmental performance.


4. The City should look at applying the SEFC development policies whichpromote more environment-friendly development to regulationscontrolling other development in the city.

5. The linking of youth job-training programs to SEFC should beencouraged by the City, especially for jobs associated with theconstruction and operation of the site.

6. The possibility of establishing space in SEFC for a farmers’ marketshould be investigated.

7. Cultural industries, such as film, theatre and TV production, shouldbe encouraged to locate and/or remain in commercial and industrialareas in SEFC.


8. The possibility for creating a SEFC neighbourhood economicdevelopment office in a City-owned facility (community centre) shouldbe considered, to promote local economic health and environmentallyresponsible business practices.

Sustainable urban neighbourhoods are prosperous and support local businesses


23. Stewardship

23.1 ISSUES

1. How can the vision of sustainability for SEFC be preserved throughoutthe development process and after the neighbourhood has been built?

2. Who should be formally involved in advising the City on initiativeswhich increase the performance of SEFC in meeting its policy goals?

3. What criteria and constraints should govern the activities of those whomay formally advise the City on SEFC?


1. To ensure that the vision of SEFC as a sustainable community ismaintained.

2. To encourage the education of residents and visitors, as well as theongoing monitoring and fine-tuning of the SEFC neighbourhood’ssocial, economic and environmental performance after developmentis complete.

23.3 NEW POLICY

1. The City should establish a stewardship advisory group to advise staffin securing and maintaining the vision for SEFC as a sustainableneighbourhood.

2. Such a group should:a) Have a range of interests and expertise amongst its members,

including those of property owners and businesses, residentsfrom the neighbourhood, and experts in the practical issues ofsustainable development;

b) Make recommendations to City staff;c) Be structured to become, over time, a neighbourhood association

and/or a Neighbourhood Integrated Service Team (NIST).

3. The stewardship advisory group, in conjunction with City staff, shoulddevelop indicators to monitor the neighbourhood’s performance afterdevelopment is complete. The responsibilities of this group shouldinclude monitoring, evaluating performance and suggesting measuresto City staff to achieve optimum levels of performance on sustainabilityobjectives in SEFC.

Sustainability is fundamentally about future generations

Appendices 79

APPENDICESA – Principles of Sustainable Development for SEFCB – Performance Targets for Southeast False CreekC – Recommendations from the October 1998 SEFC Design CharretteD – Groups Consulted and Informed on the SEFC Policy Statement


The following list of principles was drafted with the assistance of the SEFCAdvisory Group. These principles embody the spirit of sustainability.

1) Implementing Sustainability

SEFC should promote the implementation of sustainable developmentprinciples in an urban setting, and thereby contribute to improving themainstream practices of urban development throughout the region.

2) Stewardship of Ecosystem Health

Ensure that the development of SEFC works to improve the ecologi-cal health of the False Creek basin. Recognize the need for conserva-tion, restoration and management of local, regional and global eco-systems, by conserving resources and reducing wastes in such a wayas to satisfy the needs of present and future generations.

3) Economic Viability and Vitality

Seek ways to achieve economic viability in developing SEFC so thatthe knowledge gained can be transferred to other developments. Cre-ate adequate and diverse opportunities for employment and invest-ment in SEFC to ensure long term prosperity.

4) Priorities

Set social and environmental performance targets up front, with theintent of finding ways of meeting them in an economically viable fash-ion.

5) Cultural Vitality

Encourage vitality, diversity, and cultural richness in SEFC in a man-ner which respects the history and context of the site.

6) Livability

Promote livability and enhance the social and natural environment inSEFC by creating a walkable, safe and green neighbourhood whichcontributes to the well being of residents and visitors.

7) Housing Diversity and Equity

Promote opportunities for housing for a range of income groups alongwith social and physical infrastructure that is accessible to the wholecommunity, especially to children.

8) Education

Encourage awareness and understanding of the principles ofsustainability and how these are implemented on the site.

9) Participation

Encourage public involvement in decision-making processes.

10) Accountability

Promote accountability for decisions and actions by monitoring im-pacts and outcomes using post-occupancy studies and community con-sultation.

APPENDIX A – Principles of Sustainable Development for SEFC

Appendices 81

11) Adaptability

Promote adaptability and diversity by ensuring that SEFC is a com-munity that, as it grows and changes, can renew and adapt itself effec-tively to new social and economic conditions, policies, programs, leg-islation and technology.

12) Integration

Promote the integration of SEFC into the city through planning, urbandesign, community involvement and through the provision of publicamenities.

14) Spirit of the Place

Promote planning and development guidelines which celebrate theunique natural, social and historical context of SEFC.

15) Complete Community

Promote the development of SEFC as a complete community whichenables its residents to live, work, play and learn within a convenientwalking, cycling or transit-riding distance.


The following targets were recommended in the report Visions, Tools andTargets: Environmentally Sustainable Development Guidelines for South-east False Creek, produced by the sustainable development consultant teamunder the lead of The Sheltair Group.

These targets have not been adopted by the City, but can be referenced indiscussion and during development planning to identify technologicallyfeasible, but generally aggressive, levels of performance.

Solid Waste Targets

• No more than 200 kg per person per year of solid waste is sent todisposal.

• No more than 80 kg per person per year of organic waste is producedby SEFC households, of which 100% of that waste is processedwithin the SEFC site.

• No leaves or organic debris are transported off the SEFC site.

Transportation and Accessibility Targets

• 100% of dwelling units are located within 350 m of basicshopping needs and personal services.

• A minimum of 60% of street area in SEFC is dedicated towalking, cycling and transit uses.

• 30% of dwelling units in SEFC are affordable to a populationsegment relative in income distribution and family size to thoseworking in the downtown core and along the Broadway Corridor.

• 100% of residential units in SEFC are located within 350 m oftransit service.

Energy Targets

• In multi-unit residential buildings, no more than 288 kilowatt hoursper year of energy from non-renewable sources is used per m2 offloor area.

• In office buildings, no more than 284 kilowatt hours per year ofenergy from non-renewable sources is used per m2 of floor area.

• A minimum of 5% of the energy consumption in SEFC comesfrom renewable sources generated on site.

• 90% of all buildings in SEFC are connected to a district heatingsystem.

• Buildings in SEFC have a maximum peak electrical demand of33 watts per m2.

Air Emission Targets

• Residents of SEFC travel no more than 3 392 km per year fordaily shopping and commuting.

• No more than 1 498 kg per year of carbon dioxide are emittedfrom transportation-related activity in SEFC.

• 25% of buildings are designed and built with basic features thatminimize indoor pollutant levels.

Soil Targets

• A minimum of seven strategies are addressed to deal withcontaminated soils in SEFC.

APPENDIX B – Performance Targets for Southeast False Creek

Appendices 83

Water Targets

• A maximum of 100 litres of potable water is consumed perperson per day.

• No more than 54% of the overall site is covered in imperviousmaterial.

• 25% of the sewage produced in SEFC is treated on site.

• A former creek near Columbia Street should be daylighted.

Open Space Targets

• A range of habitats for at least 30 species of birds are provided inSEFC.

• 60% of the open space in SEFC has significant habitat value.

• 25% of the roof area in SEFC is designed to carry plant life.

• 80% of the foreshore in SEFC has habitat value.

• 12.5% of the produce consumed by SEFC residents is grown onsite.

Building Targets

• 75% of dwelling units and commercial spaces in SEFC havegood solar orientation.

• 30% of the materials used in SEFC buildings are salvaged, reusedor have recycled material and components in them.


In October 1998, the City of Vancouver convened a design charrette, withfinancial and resource help from the CMHC, to explore some built-formimplications of the policies presented in this draft. The aim was to testsome of the policies for further refining.

The results of the work of the three charrette teams and a resource team,which supplied information to the design teams, will be available duringthe ODP process.

After completing the charrette, some of the participants offered suggestionson the policies presented in this statement, including:

• Existing parking standards and requirements need to bechallenged.

• The renewable energy supply targets will be difficult to achieve ifhydroelectric power is not classified as “renewable.”

• Using marshes in the parks and open space should be pursued aspart of a waste-water management plan.

• The amount of land area devoted to park, and its design andprogramming, will be one of the biggest issues. What types ofpublic realm spaces will count as park? Do we allocate a certainamount of land area to park without defining the range of usesthat that land needs to serve?

• Park space should be designed as part of the urban public realm,integrating the functions it serves.

• There is a relationship between the amount and type of openspace and parks provided and the height of the built form.

• There will be many benefits to the project if the development canbe planned to take place in an incremental fashion, where

planners and developers can learn from early development phasesand can then fine-tune subsequent phases.

• “Habitat Value” is a critical concept but it needs to be furtherdefined and refined.

• Criteria needs to be established for what is meant by the policy to“clean” stormwater, as there are many meanings to “clean.”

• The soils remediation strategy will be key to shaping thedevelopment in terms of costs, land use, location, and publicperception of the neighbourhood.

• Urban agriculture is a serious issue, but there are manychallenges presented in considering commercial agriculturewithin the city.

• The marketability of this development as a “green” project is akey issue.

• Evaluation and monitoring systems should be set in place to fine-tune the development. Flexibility needs to be planned in to ensurethat such fine-tuning can take place.

APPENDIX C – Recommendations from the October 1998 SEFC Design Charrette

Appendices 85

Landowners within the SEFC Study Area

Neighbouring Community Groups including:

–Downtown Eastside–Strathcona–Mount Pleasant -several groups–Brewery Creek Heritage Society–False Creek South–Citygate–Grandview Woodlands–Industrial Property owners

Vancouver Park Board

Vancouver Richmond Health Board

Vancouver City Planning Commission

Urban Design Panel

City Youth Committee

Bicycle Advisory Committee

Blueways Advisory Committee

Heritage Commission

Community Arts Council

School Board

Greater Vancouver Transit Authority (GVTA)

Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD)

BC Hydro

Urban Development Institute (UDI)

BC Construction Roundtable

Architectural Institute of British Columbia (AIBC)

Planning Institute of British Columbia (PIBC)

Vancity Credit Union

Southeast False Creek Working Group (represents many groups)

Environmental Youth Alliance

Urban Heritage Trail

University of British Columbia (UBC)

–School of Community and Regional Planning (SCARP)–School of Landscape Architecture–School of Architecture

Simon Fraser University (SFU) – several classes

Native Education Centre

Recycling Council of BC

Coast Foundation Society (housing)

EcoCafe

SPEC & environmental groups

Ecodesign Resource Society

Academics

Many discussions with individuals, especially students

Many others (large mailing list)

Public Meetings

APPENDIX D – Groups Consulted and Informed on the SEFC Policy Statement

sefc policy statement - vancouverafter assessing industrial needs in the city and giving a priority...

Documents